As MVCIP has previously reported, the Mount Vernon Public Library Board was given a clear list of actions it needed to take to protect the Library’s registration and bring its governance and finances into compliance.
It has failed to do almost every thing the State ordered. And while Jonathan Davis—the Board’s newest trustee, elected in a landslide victory over former President Hope Marable—has tried to force compliance, Marable’s handpicked successor, Kim Harper, and her two loyalists have instead closed ranks, buried the records, shut out the public, and treated Davis—not years of lawlessness and financial dysfunction—as the problem. Now, the state finally seems poised to act.
At a recent Westchester Library System board meeting, a WLS official delivered a point-by-point update on the Mount Vernon Library’s response to the State Library’s June directives. The answers were almost uniformly no: no independent auditor identified, no permanent independent treasurer, no monthly Board meetings, no adequate internal-control policies, no consistent compliance with the Open Meetings Law, and no demonstrated compliance with the Freedom of Information Law.
The failures have now been reported to the State Education Department’s Division of Library Development for review by the Board of Regents, which is scheduled to meet October 5 and 6.
The official stopped short of predicting what the Regents will do. But the possibility of removing Library trustees is serious enough that WLS is already discussing how vacancies would be filled—and asking potential replacement candidates to submit résumés now.
“There have been enough no’s,” the official told the WLS board, “that there may be concerns.”
The Board Was Warned in June
The State Library’s June letter did not merely suggest improvements. It directed the Mount Vernon Library Board to take specific corrective action to maintain the Library’s registration and meet state standards.
Among other things, the Board was required to hire an independent treasurer, engage an independent auditor, meet monthly to review and approve warrants and payments, establish appropriate financial controls, comply with FOIL and the Open Meetings Law, and complete missing financial portions of its annual report.
The State has now asked whether those things were done. According to the WLS report, most were not.
The Library was expected to identify its financial auditor at the WLS board meeting. No name was submitted.
It was also required to complete the financial portion of its annual report for further review by September 24. Instead, Library representatives sent an email that day asking what information was needed, then submitted the material on September 25. The submission had not yet been reviewed, but the deadline was missed.
The Library had made some progress correcting questions in the miscellaneous financial sections of its annual report, the official said, but never supplied everything requested.
No Treasurer, No Monthly Meetings, No Adequate Controls
The Board has not hired a permanent independent treasurer. Charmaine Dowden remains in place as interim treasurer, according to the report.
The Board also has not followed the directive to hold monthly regular meetings at which trustees review and approve expenses. As of the end of August, it had held only one regular meeting. The remaining gatherings were finance, personnel, policy, reorganization or other special meetings.
That distinction matters. Regular meetings are where the full Board is expected to conduct the Library’s business in public, review its finances and create a record of its decisions. Committee and special meetings are not a substitute for a functioning monthly Board process.
The State also asked whether the Board had adopted policies establishing necessary internal controls. The answer was no.
Even the policies posted on the Library’s website raise questions. The WLS official pointed to a policy on the confidentiality of library records that the minutes say was adopted on April 19, 2023. The version posted in the website’s policy section, however, is marked as a draft and carries an October 19, 2021 date.
The inconsistency makes it difficult for trustees and the public to know which policies were actually adopted and which versions govern the Library.
Minutes Missing and Meetings Mishandled
The State asked whether the Board had posted minutes for its Board and committee meetings. The answer was: most of the time, but not always.
In some instances, no committee minutes were posted. In others, the posting consisted only of a list of checks, with no explanation of what was discussed or decided.
The WLS official also concluded that the Board has not consistently complied with the Open Meetings Law. That assessment was based partly on the Library’s own website and meeting records, as well as emails from community members, trustees and others reporting problems with the Board’s meeting practices. Those emails were forwarded to the Division of Library Development.
The report also flagged the timing of the Board’s 2026 reorganization meeting. In each of the previous three years, the reorganization meeting was held in July: July 19 in 2023, July 24 in 2024 and July 16 in 2025.
This year, the outgoing Board moved the meeting to June—before newly elected Trustee Jonathan Davis was scheduled to take office. That allowed outgoing Trustee Hope Marable to vote on the Board’s new leadership and committee structure while excluding the trustee voters had chosen to replace her.
WLS has now placed that departure from the Board’s historical practice before the State.
FOIL Requests Still Unfulfilled
The State also asked whether the Library had complied with the Freedom of Information Law. Again, the answer was no.
The WLS official acknowledged some movement toward assigning people to process requests. But the official also provided the State with a list of FOIL-related emails dating from February through August 2026 and said that, to their knowledge, none of those requests had been fulfilled.
That record is especially significant because the June letter expressly directed the Library to comply with FOIL, including the deadlines established by law.
Rather than correcting the problem, the Board appears to have continued it.
“A Certain Resistance” to Following the State’s Directions
Could the Board avoid state action by suddenly scheduling monthly meetings and addressing the other deficiencies before the Regents meet? The WLS official could not say.
“I honestly don’t know,” the official responded. “It’s really not my call.”
But the official emphasized that the June letter “was pretty clear” about what a functional Board was expected to do—and added that emails reviewed by WLS showed “a certain resistance to adhering to what was requested.”
That may be the most important point. The Board was not left to guess what the State required. It received written directions. It was given deadlines. It knew the Library’s registration could be placed at risk. And after months of warnings, WLS still answered no to nearly every central question about compliance.
WLS Is Preparing for Possible Removals
No decision to remove trustees has been announced, and the WLS official repeatedly made clear that the final decision belongs to the Board of Regents—not WLS or the Division of Library Development.
But WLS is preparing for the possibility. If the Regents remove one or more trustees, the official expects WLS could be asked to appoint replacements to all vacant seats at once. Those appointees would serve temporarily, with voters ultimately filling the seats through the election process. The Board would remain at five members; expanding its size would be a separate local matter.
Because WLS may receive little advance notice, the official encouraged anyone who knows qualified potential candidates to submit their résumés immediately, so WLS can begin assembling and vetting a pool before any request from the State arrives.
The official did not expect removal necessarily to bar a former trustee from seeking office again, explaining that the circumstances behind removals can differ. But the immediate goal, the official said, would be to create a Library Board capable of representing both the institution and the community.
The State Asked Whether Things Had Improved. The Answer Was No.
This is not the first time the Board of Regents has intervened in the Mount Vernon Library’s governance. A trustee was removed three years ago, and WLS participated in appointing trustees to fill vacancies. Nor is this the first warning the current Board has received.
What is different now is the completeness of the record. The State gave the Board a written list of corrective actions. It then asked WLS to determine whether the Board had carried them out.
- Independent auditor? No.
- Permanent independent treasurer? No.
- Monthly meetings and proper approval of expenses? No.
- Adequate internal controls? No.
- Consistent Open Meetings Law compliance? No.
- FOIL compliance? No.
- Complete and timely financial reporting? No.
The Board’s failures are no longer a matter of competing interpretations or political disagreement. They have been documented by the regional library system responsible for reporting conditions to the State.
The Regents now have the report, the statutory authority and an upcoming meeting. The question is no longer whether the Mount Vernon Library Board ignored the State’s directions. It is what the State intends to do about it.