At a November 2025 Mount Vernon Planning Board meeting, a letter was read into the public record making a serious allegation:
The Chair of the Planning Board had an undisclosed business relationship with a developer whose project was sitting before him.
And he had not recused himself.
That allegation — made by former Planning Commissioner and professional planner Vince Ferrandino — wasn’t about speculation or politics.
It was about specific real estate transactions, involving specific properties, tied directly to a developer actively seeking approvals from the Board.
What Was Alleged — In Plain Terms
According to the materials submitted into the record, Planning Board Chair Darryl Selsey had ongoing real estate dealings with developer Emilio DeMatteo, whose company (MAD Real Properties LLC) had an application pending before the Board.
Those dealings allegedly included:
- Acting as a real estate broker on properties tied to the developer
- Listing and marketing properties on the developer’s behalf
- Participating in transactions during the time the application was under review
None of those relationships were disclosed to the public.
And for over a year, the Chair continued to sit on — and participate in — the application.
This Is Where It Becomes a Problem
This isn’t complicated.
If a public official has a financial relationship with someone appearing before their board, the obligation is clear – or at least is should be:
- Disclose it
- Step aside
That didn’t happen here — at least not at the outset.
Instead, the Chair remained involved in the process until the issue was raised publicly and formally.
The Properties That Raise the Questions
The record points to multiple overlapping transactions between the Chair, his firm, and the developer:
- A property sold to the developer while the application was under review, with Selsey’s firm involved
- A property listed for sale by Selsey’s firm on behalf of the developer during the same period
- Additional transactions suggesting a broader business relationship between the two
Individually, each of these would warrant disclosure.
Together, they raise a more serious question:
Whether the Chair was in a position to personally benefit from a party appearing before his Board.
Recusal — But Only After It Was Raised
After the issue was brought into the record and raised by neighbors, the Chair did eventually recuse himself from the application.
But that came:
- More than a year after the application began
- After participation in the review process
- After public pressure
Even then, he stated on the record that he was “not conflicted.”
He did not resign. And neither the City, generally, nor the Planning Board, specifically, took further action.
Why This Matters Beyond One Project
This isn’t really about the project that triggered the issue.
It’s about the integrity of the process. Because when a decision-maker:
- Has undisclosed ties to an applicant
- Participates in the review anyway
- And steps aside only after being called out
It raises a fundamental question: can the public trust the outcome of that process?
The Missing Piece: A Letter the Public Can’t See
There’s another layer.
A separate letter from neighbors outlining these conflicts was:
- Delivered to the City
- Referenced in connection with the application
- Requested through FOIL
- And withheld
This is consistent with a broader pattern of noncompliance with FOIL requests in Mount Vernon, where residents are often left without practical recourse to challenge improper denials.
In this instance, the City’s position was that the letter was “personal and confidential” — despite relating directly to a public official’s role in a public proceeding during which the letter was relied upon.
What Didn’t Happen
At multiple points, there were opportunities to address this:
- When the relationships existed
- When the application was filed
- When the conflict was raised publicly
But:
- No formal ethics review was announced
- No investigation was disclosed
- No corrective action was taken beyond a late recusal
Leadership Sets the Tone
That pattern – that failure to act, that total disregard of what is right and ethical – doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
When residents have raised conflict concerns at the highest level, they have been met not with caution — but dismissal.
In one instance, when asked to recuse herself due to a conflict, the Mayor’s reported response to residents was simple:
“Sue me.”
That posture matters.
Because when leadership signals that ethics concerns are optional — or irrelevant — it sets the standard for everyone else in the system.
The Bottom Line
Residents did what they are supposed to do:
They paid attention. They documented the facts. They put it on the record.
And still:
- The Chair stayed
- The Board did nothing
- And the system moved forward
So, the question isn’t just whether there was a conflict.
It’s whether, in Mount Vernon, conflicts matter at all.
And it doesn’t stop there.
How many other properties was Mr. Selsey involved with while matters were pending before the Planning Board?
How many decisions did he influence that may have benefitted his own firm?
Those questions go to the integrity of the process itself.
MVCIP will continue examining these issues — including across other City boards and commissions.
That includes the Board of Ethics. On paper, the Board is supposed to serve as an independent body charged with interpreting and enforcing the City’s Code of Ethics, promoting transparency, and ensuring accountability.
In practice, it has not functioned that way. And its inaction underscores the deeper problem: a system that relies on compromised and ethically conflicted actors to enforce its own rules is not a system designed to hold anyone accountable.