The official went further, suggesting that people involved in civic reform efforts, online discussion, and charter reform advocacy are effectively trying to “destroy” Mount Vernon for political purposes.

That framing deserves serious attention because it reflects a deeply troubling view of public participation and democratic accountability.

Let’s be clear about something:

Criticizing government is not the same thing as attacking a city.

In fact, in a functioning democracy, criticism of government is one of the highest forms of civic engagement. Residents attend meetings, file FOIL requests, analyze budgets, challenge planning decisions, circulate petitions, and speak publicly because they care about what happens to their community, not because they want it to fail.

People do not spend countless unpaid hours immersed in local government because they want Mount Vernon to “crumble.” They do it because they believe Mount Vernon deserves better.

That distinction matters.

Unfortunately, there has been an increasingly common tendency among some local officials and political allies to conflate criticism of leadership with hatred of the city itself. If someone questions a budget, they are “negative.” If someone criticizes a development proposal, they are “anti-progress.” If someone raises ethics concerns, they are accused of causing division. If someone supports structural reform, they are portrayed as trying to destroy Mount Vernon.

That is not democratic leadership. That is narrative control.

And the irony here is difficult to ignore.

The same officials who insist public criticism creates “chaos” often preside over the very dysfunction residents are reacting to in the first place: political infighting, opaque decision-making, procedural irregularities, performative public engagement, conflicts of interest, financial instability, and institutional dysfunction that residents can plainly observe with their own eyes.

Residents are not inventing these issues. They are responding to them.

The suggestion that public discussion itself is the real problem flips accountability upside down. Under that logic, the issue is not governmental dysfunction. It is the people noticing it.

That is a dangerous mindset for any elected official to hold.

The comment also referenced a supposed “Roger Stone” strategy and implied that criticism of city government is part of some coordinated effort to destabilize Mount Vernon in order to advance charter reform.

But notably absent from the accusation was anything concrete:

• What false information was supposedly spread?
• What specific conduct “destroyed” the city?
• What exactly constitutes “incitement” here?
• Since when is advocating for governmental reform illegitimate in a democracy?

There is a profound difference between disagreement and sabotage.

Residents advocating for charter reform, greater transparency, different planning policies, stronger financial oversight, or structural changes to city government are participating in a process explicitly authorized under New York law. People may disagree with those ideas, strongly, but disagreement does not transform civic participation into some sinister conspiracy.

Nor does criticism become illegitimate simply because it is effective.

What this rhetoric really reveals is something else entirely: discomfort with losing control of the public narrative.

For years, many residents felt shut out of major decisions affecting the future of the city. Increasingly, people are speaking up, asking questions, reviewing documents, comparing statements to public records, and organizing around issues that matter to them. That is not “chaos syndrome.” That is civic engagement.

And frankly, elected officials should welcome it.

A healthy city is not one where residents remain silent out of fear of being labeled “negative” or accused of harming the community. A healthy city is one where people are informed, engaged, skeptical when necessary, and unafraid to challenge power.

Mount Vernon does not become weaker because residents ask hard questions.

It becomes stronger.

Who is actually running this city?

Because based on what residents are seeing—and asking—it doesn’t appear to be anyone.

An email chain circulating among residents this week raises serious concerns about a planned multi-day cannabis-related event in Fleetwood tied to two dispensary promotions around April 20.

The concerns aren’t subtle. They’re fundamental:

• Are there permits?
• Who approved this?
• What agencies reviewed it?
• What happens if something goes wrong?

So far, the answer to all of those questions appears to be the same: no response.

This Isn’t About Cannabis

This is not a debate about legalization.

Cannabis is legal in New York. Dispensaries are legal. That’s not the issue.

The issue is governance.

Even supporters of legalization should be asking:

• You’re hosting a multi-day event
• In a mixed residential/commercial neighborhood
• Potentially involving crowds, traffic, vendors, and public safety risks

And no one can point to:

• A permit
• A site plan review
• Police or DPW coordination
• Any public discussion at a City Council meeting

That’s not normal. That’s not how any functioning municipality operates.

What the State Actually Says About Cannabis Events

Under current New York rules, a promotional “takeover” tied to dispensary sales isn’t just unpermitted. It’s unpermittable.

The New York Office of Cannabis Management has stated it directly on its compliance page: “The Office does not currently issue permits for cannabis events.” A showcase event framework exists on paper under Cannabis Law § 130-a, but OCM has not stood up the regulatory machinery to issue those permits on any routine basis.

And for any cannabis event held outside a licensed dispensary, OCM’s rules are blunt:

• Must be limited to education and product showcase
• No on-site consumption
• No direct or indirect cannabis sales

So if the Fleetwood event involves sampling, pop-up sales, giveaways tied to purchases, or any on-site consumption, it’s non-compliant with state cannabis law regardless of what the City does or doesn’t do.

If it’s purely educational—no sales, no consumption, no sampling—OCM may not require a state permit. But that doesn’t get anyone off the hook for the stack of local approvals Mount Vernon requires for an event of this size.

What the City Actually Requires

The City’s own Special Event Application defines a “special event” as any preplanned gathering on a public or private street, sidewalk, park, or building that inhibits normal pedestrian or vehicle flow or preempts normal use of the space.

A multi-day 4/20 activation in a mixed residential/commercial block meets that definition the moment it puts up a tent, runs amplified sound, brings in food vendors, or draws crowds into the street.

None of these apply only to events on public land. A cannabis event on a private lot with amplified music, sidewalk crowds, and traffic spillover will automatically trigger zoning enforcement, noise complaints, and disorderly-premises findings regardless of who owns the parcel.

Nothing on the Council Record

We pulled the text from all 13 City Council agenda packets covering October 8, 2025 through April 8, 2026—the last regular meeting before the event weekend.

Elevate doesn’t appear in any of them. Neither does Nuna Harvest. Not as a business, not as a sponsor, not as an applicant, not as a co-sponsor.

No agenda item, ordinance, resolution, referral letter, or attachment authorizes a cannabis event, a 4/20 event, or any special event at all for April 19 or April 20, 2026.

If the Council approved this event, the record should show it. It doesn’t.

Residents Are Doing the Government’s Job

Look at what’s happening in real time:

• Residents are filing complaints with the State Office of Cannabis Management
• Others are contacting State Police
• Some are preparing to reach out to the District Attorney
• Multiple people have emailed the Mayor and City Council

And the response? Silence.

The Integrity Project called the City Clerk’s office on Friday 4/17 at 12:30pm and again at 1pm. Both times nobody picked up the phone and we were re-directed to voicemail.***

When residents are escalating issues to state agencies before the City even acknowledges them, something is broken.

The Pattern Is the Story

If this were an isolated incident, maybe you chalk it up to confusion.

But it’s not. This fits a pattern Mount Vernon residents know all too well:

• Events appear without clear approvals
• Enforcement is inconsistent or nonexistent
• Basic questions go unanswered
• Decisions—if they’re being made—aren’t being made publicly

The pattern around this specific dispensary is worth noting. Elevate opened on South Terrace Avenue in December 2023 without a building permit, was given a temporary certificate of occupancy the following February, and as of last summer still lacked site plan approval, a permanent certificate of occupancy, and a zoning variance for its undersized parking lot.

A previous “Cars and Cannabis” event last August went forward while those approvals were still outstanding. None of that has been resolved quietly in the background—it’s just been waved through.

And afterward, everyone is left asking what just happened.

The Real Risk

The concern raised in the thread isn’t hypothetical.

Residents referenced prior large gatherings that required mutual aid from surrounding police departments when things got out of control. Like the brawl at Memorial Stadium.

That’s what happens when:

• Events are not properly vetted
• Crowd management isn’t planned
• Agencies aren’t coordinated

This is exactly why municipalities have permitting processes in the first place.

What Should Be Happening

In any competently run city, a multi-day event like this would trigger:

• Formal permit applications
• Interdepartmental review (Police, Fire, DPW, Buildings)
• Conditions on operations (hours, security, sanitation, traffic)
• Public awareness—if not outright discussion

Instead, residents are left piecing together information from social media posts and email chains.

The Bottom Line

This isn’t about whether a 4/20 event should happen.

It’s about whether anything in Mount Vernon happens with structure, oversight, or accountability.

Right now, the answer is a resounding no. And until that changes, it won’t matter what the issue is—cannabis, zoning, development, or public safety.

The outcome will be the same:

Residents asking basic questions.

And City Hall nowhere to be found.

***Update: City Hall returned our phone call at 3.30pm. They stated that they had contacted both establishments, which insisted that the events would only be within parameters that do not require City permits, which means: No amplified music, no food trucks, nothing on city sidewalks, no cannabis consumption on the premises. Given that these establishment have made these kind of statements before past events, just to ignore them, I encouraged the City Clerk’s office to send inspectors to ensure compliance with City and State laws.

Recent testing by the environmental watchdog organization Save the Sound shows sewage contamination flowing into Hunts Woods at levels that should stop us all cold. MVCIP has reported on this before.

Things have only gotten worse.

What the Testing Shows

On April 7, 2026, water testing at a pipe in the park (Outfall 61) found extremely high levels of bacteria linked to human waste.

To put it simply:

• The safe level is about 60
• What was found was 2,755

That’s more than 45 times higher than what’s considered safe.

And this wasn’t after a storm. This was during dry weather—when that pipe shouldn’t be carrying much water at all.

That means this isn’t runoff. It’s sewage getting into the storm system.

Where It’s Coming From

The water was tested right at the pipe where it comes out.

That matters because it means the contamination is coming through the City’s storm sewer system itself—not from somewhere downstream.

In plain terms:

• Something is wrong with the City’s sewer infrastructure
• And it’s sending contaminated water straight into the park

People Are Being Exposed

Hunts Woods is not some remote area. It’s a neighborhood park. Children play there. Dogs run there. For many residents, it’s their backyard.

This highly contaminated water is flowing into the stream with no warning, no closure, and no real acknowledgment whatsoever by the City.

At these levels, exposure is linked to:

• stomach illness
• skin infections
• other health risks

Especially for kids and pets who are more likely to come into direct contact with the water.

And It’s Not the Only Problem

There’s also a broken sewer line in the same park. It runs through the stream and has been found to be damaged and failing.

So, there are multiple sources of sewage contamination affecting the same public space.

What the City Has Done

Instead of fixing the problem, the City has put up signs telling residents to clean up after their dogs.

That’s not just wrong—it’s misdirection. Dog waste does not create this level of contamination. And it does not come out of a storm drainpipe in dry weather.

This is not a resident problem. This is a City infrastructure problem.

This Should Already Be Fixed

Mount Vernon is already subject to oversight, via consent order, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for sewer system failures and illicit discharges.

Right now, the City is in violation of that consent order and New York state law, which requires that any sewage in stormwater be identified and eliminated—full stop.

Despite the City’s knowledge—now going back years—that our stormwater system is badly contaminated, remediation has not happened.

The Bottom Line

Sewage is being discharged into a public park.

People and animals are being exposed.

The problem has not been fixed. In fact, the problem has been actively ignored.

Until the problem is appropriately addressed, Hunts Woods is not just a park.

It’s a public health crime scene.

The letter frames this as a modest, well-structured proposal modeled on Yonkers. It lists fiscal pressures, mentions austerity measures already taken, and cites the Governor’s encouragement for cities to find new revenue. It even includes a brief section acknowledging potential downsides.

What the letter does not include is any discussion of whether this proposal is legal.

That’s a significant omission. Because there are real constitutional problems with what’s being proposed, and the mayor’s office either knows about them and chose not to mention them, or doesn’t know about them and didn’t bother to check. Neither option inspires confidence.

The Yonkers Comparison Is Wrong

The mayor’s letter leans heavily on Yonkers as a model. The implication is straightforward: Yonkers does it, it works, we should do it too.

There’s a problem. Yonkers does not have a commuter-only tax. Yonkers has a city income tax that applies to both residents and nonresidents. Residents pay an income tax surcharge of 16.75% of their New York State tax liability. Nonresidents pay a 0.50% earnings tax on wages earned in the city. Both groups pay. That’s the entire point.

What the mayor is proposing is something different: a tax that falls exclusively on nonresidents while residents pay nothing comparable. That distinction is not a technicality. It’s the difference between a tax structure that has survived legal challenge and one the U.S. Supreme Court has already struck down.

The Constitutional Problem the Mayor Didn’t Mention

In Austin v. New Hampshire (1975), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New Hampshire’s Commuters Income Tax because it fell exclusively on the income of nonresidents and was not offset by comparable taxes on residents. The Court held that this violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV of the Constitution, which prohibits states from discriminating against citizens of other states in their ability to earn a livelihood.

The parallel to what Mount Vernon is proposing is direct. A commuter tax that applies only to nonresidents, with no comparable income tax on residents, is the same structure the Court found unconstitutional in Austin. If a commuter from Connecticut or New Jersey working in Mount Vernon files a challenge, Austin is a direct bar. Full stop.

There’s a wrinkle worth noting. The Privileges and Immunities Clause protects citizens of other states, not necessarily residents of other municipalities within New York. So if the tax only hit commuters from, say, New Rochelle or White Plains, Austin‘s precise hook might not apply. But that doesn’t solve the problem. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the New York State Constitution, would still require a rational basis for taxing commuters while exempting residents earning the same wages in the same city. Courts have generally been skeptical of pure residence-based distinctions in local income taxes, and for good reason.

None of this analysis appears in the mayor’s letter. Not a word about Austin. Not a word about the Privileges and Immunities Clause. Not a word about Equal Protection. The letter asks the City Council to formally request state legislation authorizing a tax structure with known constitutional defects, without disclosing those defects.

The State Authorization Problem

Before any of the constitutional analysis matters, there’s a threshold question: New York municipalities don’t have inherent taxing power. They can only impose taxes the state legislature explicitly authorizes. Yonkers has a city income tax because Albany gave Yonkers that authority. New York City has its structure because of its special charter and state law. Mount Vernon would need the state legislature to act first.

Albany has historically been reluctant to expand local income tax authority outside of New York City. The word from Albany, relayed by people who would know, is that this proposal is dead on arrival. The reasons are practical: authorizing one city to impose a commuter-only tax would set a precedent that any municipality in New York could follow. Every city, town, and village could start taxing workers who commute in from somewhere else. In a state where people routinely live and work in different municipalities, that’s an inflationary feeding frenzy nobody in state government wants to trigger, least of all Governor Hochul, who is running for re-election and has no interest in adding new taxes to an already crushing cost of living in the New York metro area.

There’s also the matter of representation. State legislators from New Rochelle, Yonkers, Bronxville, Pelham, and every other community whose residents commute into Mount Vernon would be voting on whether to let Mount Vernon tax their constituents. Good luck with that.

The Practical Problems

Set aside the legal questions for a moment. Even if this proposal were constitutional and Albany were willing, the policy itself is counterproductive.

Mount Vernon badly needs business development. The city needs employers to locate here, expand here, and hire here. A commuter tax tells every business considering Mount Vernon that their employees will face an additional payroll burden for the privilege of showing up to work. It tells every worker considering a job in Mount Vernon that they’d be better off taking the same job in New Rochelle or Yonkers or the Bronx, where no such tax exists. In a competitive labor market, that’s a self-inflicted wound.

Then there are the city’s own employees. A large percentage of Mount Vernon’s police officers, firefighters, and teachers live outside the city. A commuter tax on those workers would immediately become a labor relations issue. Public employee unions would demand salary adjustments to offset the tax, and they’d have leverage to get them. The net revenue gain to the city could be partially or entirely consumed by higher labor costs. You’d be taxing your own workforce to pay your own workforce more. It’s a fiscal hamster wheel.

And then there’s reciprocity. Thousands of Mount Vernon residents commute to jobs in surrounding communities. What prevents those communities from doing the same thing? If Mount Vernon can tax New Rochelle residents who work here, why can’t New Rochelle tax Mount Vernon residents who work there? The mayor’s letter doesn’t address this, probably because the answer is obvious and unhelpful.

Blaming Outsiders for an Inside Job

The underlying logic of the proposal raises additional questions. The framing goes something like this: Mount Vernon is being exploited by outsiders. Commuters come here, use our roads, benefit from our police and fire services, and take their money home to spend in their own communities. They’re profiting from Mount Vernon without paying their fair share.

This is a familiar political move: find an external group , blame them for fiscal problems they didn’t cause, and propose taking their money to fill a hole created by your own mismanagement. It’s the politics of scapegoating, and it has a long, ugly history at every level of American government.

Mount Vernon’s fiscal crisis was not caused by a New Rochelle resident who teaches at a Mount Vernon school. It was not caused by a Yonkers resident who works at a Mount Vernon business. It was caused by years of mismanagement, uncontrolled spending, nepotism, deferred maintenance, missing audits, and a political culture that treats the city budget as a patronage fund. We’ve documented this extensively.

The city has already raised property taxes. It has introduced garbage and sewer fees that were previously covered by property taxes. It has raised building department fees. Residents are paying more and getting less. Instead of addressing the spending side of the equation with real reform, city officials keep finding new pockets to pick. The commuter tax proposal is the latest entry in that pattern: don’t fix the dysfunction, just find someone new to pay for it.

What the Council Should Do

Before the City Council takes any action on this request, it should demand a legal opinion from the Corporation Counsel on the constitutionality of a commuter-only tax under Austin v. New Hampshire and the Equal Protection Clause. That opinion should be made public. If the mayor’s office already has a legal opinion, the Council should ask why it wasn’t included in the letter.

The Council should also ask a simpler question: has anyone in city government spoken with Assemblyman Pretlow or Senator Stewart-Cousins about whether this legislation has any realistic chance of passing in Albany?

Because spending political capital on a proposal that is both legally dubious and legislatively impossible is not governing. It’s theater.

Related Reading:

We Met with Assemblyman Pretlow About Mount Vernon’s Fiscal Emergency

The Austerity Budget That Wasn’t

MVCIP Fiscal Oversight Report (PDF)

Austin v. New Hampshire, 420 U.S. 656 (1975) – Full Opinion

This is a story about what grows when accountability disappears.

There are two 501(c)(3) nonprofits operating out of Room 11 at Mount Vernon City Hall. They share the same address, overlapping officers, and a board composed almost entirely of city employees. One uses the Recreation Department’s phone number. The other has the city’s Commissioner of Recreation and Commissioner of Public Works written into its bylaws as permanent board members. And in 2024, the City of Mount Vernon issued one of them $60,000 in federal pandemic relief funds, with checks approved by the same man who runs both organizations.

The first is called Friends of Mount Vernon Arts, Recreation and Youth Programs Inc. (Friends of MVARYP, EIN 90-0910967). The second is the Mount Vernon Memorial Field Foundation, Inc. (MVMFF, EIN 47-1292288). Both have websites that show very little meaningful information.

What follows is what the public records show.

THE CONTEXT: A CITY THAT STOPPED REPORTING

In September 2020, State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli released an audit of Mount Vernon’s financial reporting and oversight. City officials had not established basic financial policies or procedures. The City Comptroller failed to file the required annual financial report for fiscal years 2016 through 2019. No audited financial statements had been issued since 2015. The city had lost its credit rating.

In January 2022, a second state audit found millions in expenses not timely paid, inappropriate actions by the former city comptroller, and poor disclosure that caused ongoing legal issues. The state made 29 recommendations. DiNapoli urged Mayor Patterson-Howard and the incoming City Comptroller, Darren Morton, to implement them immediately.

As of the state’s most recent follow-up, the City’s 2021 through 2024 audits remain outstanding. The general fund deficit, last measured at $28.9 million as of December 2020, has likely grown. The city still cannot tell its own residents what its finances look like.

This is the environment in which Friends of MVARYP received $60,000 in federal money, and in which two city-run nonprofits operate out of the same room in City Hall.

THE FIRST NONPROFIT: FRIENDS OF MVARYP

Friends of MVARYP was incorporated in 2012 and received 501(c)(3) status in 2014. It operates out of City Hall, uses the Recreation Department’s phone line, and reports revenue of $300,856 for fiscal year 2024. Based on its IRS Form 990-EZ filings (available on ProPublica) and city employment records, here is its board:

Eight of nine board members are current city employees or elected officials. This is not a community organization with some government ties. It is city government running a private fundraising vehicle, one that answers to no city council, no budget hearing, no public vote, and no FOIL request.

THE SECOND NONPROFIT: MOUNT VERNON MEMORIAL FIELD FOUNDATION

Friends of MVARYP is not the only nonprofit operating out of Room 11.

The Mount Vernon Memorial Field Foundation, Inc. (MVMFF) was incorporated on April 3, 2014, under Section 402 of the New York Not-for-Profit Corporation Law. Its Certificate of Incorporation was filed by Darren M. Morton. Its stated purpose: to provide financial and programmatic support for the preservation, renovation, and operation of Memorial Field.

On June 5, 2024, Morton signed the organization’s Registration Statement for Charitable Organizations (CHAR410) with the New York State Attorney General’s Charities Bureau, listing himself as President and primary contact. The registration was received July 16, 2024. The foundation is registered under NY State Reg. No. 50-30-94, with its principal address at 1 Roosevelt Square, Suite 11, the same room in City Hall where Friends of MVARYP operates.

The registration lists three officers:

Every officer of the Memorial Field Foundation also serves on the board of Friends of MVARYP. All three are city employees or elected officials.

The overlap does not end with shared personnel. The MVMFF bylaws structurally embed city government into the nonprofit’s leadership: Section 6.1 mandates that the board include “the City of Mt. Vernon Commissioner of Recreation and Commissioner of Department of Public Works.” Section 6.2 confirms these commissioners serve “by appointment to the respective City office,” not by election. This is not informal overlap. It is a permanent feature of the organization’s charter.

The foundation’s Certificate of Incorporation designates process service at One Roosevelt Square, Room 11, City Hall. Its contact email is Morton’s personal Gmail.

One additional detail: according to the CHAR410, MVMFF’s federal tax-exempt status was revoked on May 17, 2017. The registration was filed June 5, 2024, seven years after revocation. Whether this represents a re-application or a registration of an organization operating without tax-exempt status is not clear from the public record.

Two nonprofits. Same City Hall address. Same president. Same treasurer. Overlapping boards. City commissioners written into the bylaws.

No resident voted for this. No city council authorized it. No public hearing examined it.

THE FEDERAL MONEY

In May 2024, Mayor Shawyn Patterson-Howard signed a formal ARPA subrecipient contract awarding Friends of MVARYP $60,000 in federal pandemic relief funds. The nonprofit was represented at signing by Kathleen Walker-Pinckney, the city’s own Recreation Commissioner, acting as the nonprofit’s Vice-President. The city’s Department of Planning and Community Development administered the contract.

The city issued two checks from the Office of the Comptroller: $30,000 on July 15, 2024 (Check No. 160381), and $30,000 on October 8, 2024 (Check No. 161390). Both payable to Friends of MVARYP at 1 Roosevelt Square, Room 11, City Hall. Payment vouchers require Comptroller approval.

The Comptroller is Darren Morton. The President of Friends of MVARYP is Darren Morton. The President of the Memorial Field Foundation is also Darren Morton. His office approved disbursements to an organization he leads, while simultaneously leading a second nonprofit out of the same office.

The contract’s Section 16, Conflict of Interest, states:

“The Subrecipient warrants that no part of the total Contract Amount shall be paid, directly or indirectly to an employee or official of the City/County as wages, compensation or gifts.”

The nonprofit’s board is composed almost entirely of city employees and officials. The contract contains a clause it cannot truthfully sign, and the city signed it anyway.

THE FIRE RELIEF SOLICITATION

On November 24, 2025, a fire tore through a residential building at 30 Cottage Avenue in Mount Vernon. Mayor Patterson-Howard responded on her official city Facebook page, directing all monetary donations to Friends of MVARYP, with Zelle payments to Accounting@friendsofmountvernon.org. Gift cards were to be dropped at the Office of the Mayor.

Click here for full-size image

No independent charity. No escrow account. No public accounting. The mayor used the authority of her office to channel disaster relief donations into a nonprofit controlled by city hall employees. As of publication, no accounting of those funds has been made public.

THE CITY COUNCIL WAS ASKED TO BLESS IT

On the evening of March 9, 2026, the Mount Vernon City Council held a work session. Item 12 on the referral packet read:

“An Ordinance Authorizing Continued Co-Sponsorship between the Mount Vernon Recreation Department, Youth Bureau, and Friends of Mount Vernon Arts, Recreation & Youth Programs, Inc. for Community Programming and Special Events.”

The attached letter, submitted by Commissioner Walker-Pinckney and Executive Director Burrell-Butler, requests Council approval of a formal, ongoing agreement allowing the nonprofit to “accept monetary donations to continue funding special events hosted by the Recreation and Youth Bureau Departments.” The stated reason: “current budget constraints.”

That is a direct, written admission that Friends of MVARYP exists to move public-purpose money outside the budget process, bypassing city council appropriations, public hearings, and Freedom of Information Law.

The co-sponsorship request was submitted on Friends of MVARYP letterhead, but that letterhead lists the city’s own website (cmvny.com), the Recreation Department’s Facebook page, and the Recreation Department’s phone and fax numbers. The nonprofit has no independent institutional identity. The signatories used their government titles: Walker-Pinckney signed as “Commissioner,” Burrell-Butler as “Executive Director.” City officials using government authority to advocate for a contract between the city and a nonprofit they lead is a textbook Public Officers Law §74 conflict, documented, signed, and submitted to a legislative body.

Click here to see the full referral and letter.

And the word “continued” is telling. They are not asking to create this relationship. They are asking the Council to formalize one that has already been running without legislative authorization.

Approval does not shield anyone from legal exposure. But it creates institutional cover and makes future accountability harder.

THE INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE

Think about how many hands this agenda item passed through before it reached the public. Someone drafted the letter. Someone formatted it on nonprofit letterhead listing city phone numbers. Someone packaged it into the referral packet. Someone assigned it an item number. Someone distributed it to Council members. Someone posted the agenda.

At every step, a city employee had the opportunity to say: wait a minute. A nonprofit run entirely by city employees, operating out of City Hall, using city phone lines, chaired by the city’s own Comptroller, is asking the Council to authorize it to raise money for city programs outside the budget. The letter is signed by two department heads using their government titles. The word “continued” tells you this has been running without authorization.

Nobody stopped it. Nobody flagged it. Nobody said this needs legal review before it goes to a vote.

That silence is not a procedural lapse. It is an institutional failure. The systems meant to catch conflicts of interest, to ensure public money moves through public processes, to protect taxpayers from self-dealing, have either broken down or were never functioning.

The individual conflicts in this article are serious. But an entire administrative apparatus processing this referral without a single objection may be the most damning detail of all. It suggests the arrangement is not being hidden. It is simply normal. The people inside City Hall do not see the problem, because the problem is the culture they work in every day.

WHAT THIS MEANS

New York Public Officers Law §74 prohibits public employees from engaging in activities that create a substantial conflict with their official duties. Federal ARPA regulations under 2 CFR §200.318 require conflict of interest disclosures and prohibit officials from participating in grants in which they have a personal interest. The city administered $60,000 in federal money through an arrangement that violates the plain terms of both standards.

Mount Vernon spent years unable to account for public money. The state documented the failures. Officials promised reform. And while reform was being promised, while the audits remained unfinished and the credit rating stayed suspended, city officials were building a parallel financial structure: two nonprofits, same City Hall office, same leadership, funded first by private donations, then by federal ARPA funds, and potentially to be formally ratified by the City Council as standard operating procedure.

Mount Vernon residents deserve a government that spends public money in public. What is described here is the opposite of that.

The conversation was direct. Mount Vernon is not experiencing a one-year budget problem. The city has no bond rating, no completed audits since 2020, no reserve funds, and over $60 million in unpaid property taxes. Property taxes have risen more than 40% over the last five years while city services have declined. The City Comptroller has warned that insolvency is possible within two years.

This is not news to Albany. The New York State Comptroller’s office has audited Mount Vernon’s finances multiple times and found serious failures each time. A 2020 audit found that the city had not filed required annual financial reports for fiscal years 2016 through 2019, had produced no audited financial statements since 2015, and had lost its credit rating as a result. A follow-up audit released in January 2022 documented 29 separate recommendations to overhaul the city comptroller’s office, after finding unauthorized electronic disbursements totaling $16.4 million, millions in unpaid bills, and a near-total absence of financial controls. The state has flagged these problems. The city has not fixed them.

Assemblyman Pretlow indicated he is well aware of Mount Vernon’s financial condition. He expressed support for the concept of a state financial monitor and stated that if the Mount Vernon City Council passed a resolution requesting one, he would champion it at the state level.

That last part matters.

A state financial monitor cannot be imposed from Albany without local action first. Under New York’s home rule framework, the City Council must move first. A council resolution requesting state oversight would give the Assemblyman the political and procedural footing to act.

This is now a question for Mount Vernon’s elected council members.

MVCIP’s position is straightforward: the city’s fiscal problems are structural, not cyclical. They will not resolve themselves through another tax increase or another year of delayed audits. Meaningful oversight, with real authority and clear exit conditions, is what a responsible path forward looks like.

We will be bringing this message directly to city council members in the weeks ahead. We encourage residents to do the same.

Download our full report on the fiscal emergency in Mount Vernon here.

It is reflected in the 5.5% property tax increase, the consistent appearance of new fees, the current fees that multiply with every tax bill, and a municipal budget that shows a city spending roughly two dollars for every dollar it brings in. It is visible in aging infrastructure, flooding, deteriorating buildings, and departments that struggle to deliver basic services.

Against that backdrop, the City’s recent spending decisions deserve scrutiny.

$20,800 in Conference Travel

At the March 3 meeting of the Board of Estimate & Contract, the City approved five out-of-town conference trips totaling $13,800.

Those approvals follow another $7,000 in conference travel approved the previous month.

In two months, that is $20,800 in conference travel.

All approved unanimously. With virtually no discussion. Comptroller Darren Morton asked a few questions — but in the end, he did what he always does…

The “Free” Trip That Isn’t Free

One of the approved trips sends the Building Commissioner, Patrick Holder, to Las Vegas for four days to attend the Laserfiche Empower Conference at the Mandalay Bay Resort.

City officials noted that conference registration is covered by a third party. That does not make the trip free — far from it.

The City is still paying his salary, benefits, travel and lodging, and four days of lost work time.

The Building Department

The Las Vegas trip is particularly offensive given the condition of Mount Vernon’s Building Department, which residents and contractors regularly describe as a Kafkaesque nightmare.

• Permits routinely sit for months or years. I have personally been waiting an obscene amount of time to close a simple solar permit.
• Code enforcement is nearly nonexistent, and what enforcement does occur is wildly inconsistent.
• Buildings across Mount Vernon are literally falling apart. Just recently, a hole was discovered — by a resident — in the top deck of the Sidney Avenue parking garage, forcing part of the structure to close.
• And the Building Department itself — with its yellowed, crumbling, mold-infested walls — is a disgusting symbol of the City’s neglect. The condition of the office perfectly reflects the condition of the system it runs.

Under these circumstances, sending the department head — or any department employee — across the country to a resort conference in Las Vegas is not just inappropriate, it is outrageous. And it is one more slap in the face to the hardworking Mount Vernon taxpayers who are expected to foot the bill for a government that cannot even perform its most basic functions.

The Building Commissioner — especially this Building Commissioner — should be in the office fixing the department, not flying to Nevada for a four-day resort junket. The Building Department already has a Laserfiche contract. What it does not have is a functioning operation. And even if that conference offered something of genuine value, Laserfiche is records management software — not a tool the Building Commissioner should be running or overseeing in the first place. This is not a trip that required the commissioner. It was a trip the commissioner decided to take.

A Convenient Loophole

Another approved trip highlights a structural issue.

The Board of Water Supply received approval for a conference in Charlotte, North Carolina, on the ground that it operates outside the City’s austerity review protocols.

If austerity is real, however, it should apply everywhere our tax dollars are used, and the Board of Water Supply is most certainly wetting their beaks. In fact, Mount Vernon water bills just recently increased.

Austerity measures should apply not only to the Board of Water Supply, but also to the Mount Vernon Urban Renewal Agency and the Mount Vernon Industrial Development Agency.

At present, it does not. What sense does that make?

Meanwhile . . . a Portrait Ceremony

While approving travel under an austerity budget, the City is also planning a ceremony to unveil a portrait of former Comptroller Maureen Walker later this month.

That raises a simple question: Who is paying for the portrait?

If taxpayer funds are involved, residents deserve to know.

The ceremony also carries a certain irony.

Former Comptroller Deborah Reynolds has absorbed no shortage of blame over the past six years — from many of the very same officials now organizing this ceremony. But the problems did not start with Reynolds.

Maureen Walker served as Comptroller during former Mayor Ernie Davis’ tenure — a period marked by corruption and fiscal mismanagement that helped set the stage for the crisis Mount Vernon is living through today. The Comptroller’s job is to be a check on exactly that kind of behavior: to watch the books, flag the problems, and protect the public. Walker kept things looking orderly. What she did not do was sound the alarm. Whether she failed to see what was happening, or simply chose not to say anything, the result was the same.

So the ceremony carries a particular irony. The officials who spent years pointing fingers at Reynolds are now unveiling a portrait of the comptroller who came before her — the one who kept things looking fine while the foundation cracked.

So the real question is not simply whether Walker deserves a portrait. The real question is why Mount Vernon keeps honoring the very people who brought it to where it is right now.

This is performative nonsense. And it is exactly what we have come to expect from this administration.

Austerity Means Choices

Austerity is not a slogan. It is a set of priorities.

Mount Vernon residents are paying higher taxes, higher fees, and watching basic services continue to deteriorate.

City Hall is paying for unnecessary conferences, travel, and ceremonies.

If that’s what austerity looks like, it’s no wonder the City’s finances never improve.

The proposal does all of the following:

• Eliminates the existing DPW Deputy Commissioner (Administrative) title

• Transfers the function into the Mayor’s Office

• Expands authority to oversee infrastructure and capital projects citywide

• Raises the salary from approximately $117,000 to $175,147.29

• Funds the position largely through state reimbursement, with the remainder coming from Water and DPW

This wasn’t a routine staffing tweak.

It was the creation of a six-figure executive infrastructure role, moved directly under the Mayor.

The Mayor’s Justification

The Mayor repeatedly characterized the position as “largely administrative” — a project-management role coordinating outside engineers, consultants, regulatory agencies, and grant compliance.

She argued, in substance, that:

• Civil Service approved the title

• The State approved the title

• The City already uses outside engineering firms for technical design work

• City engineers “advise” and oversee, but do not draw plans

• The role is managerial rather than technical

• A majority of the salary is covered by the State

That framing is designed to make the position sound like routine coordination.

But the facts don’t support that.

If It’s Administrative, the Mayor Already Has Staff For That

Mount Vernon residents are already paying for the Mayor to have a Chief of Staff and a Deputy Chief of Staff.

And the administration is actively advancing a Charter amendment to codify both positions into the City Charter — elevating them into permanent executive offices with coordination and oversight authority.

That tells you two things:

• The Mayor already has executive staff whose purpose is coordination across departments.

• The Mayor is simultaneously trying to make that executive layer permanent through the Charter.

So the “it’s just administrative coordination” argument collapses.

If it were truly clerical coordination, the existing executive layer could do it — especially while the Mayor is moving to formalize and entrench that layer in the Charter.

Instead, the administration created an additional executive-level infrastructure title at $175,147 and placed it directly under the Mayor.

That isn’t coordination — it’s executive expansion.

A Structural Power Shift

This job is not sitting in DPW.

It is being transferred into the Mayor’s Office.

And the role, as described during the Council discussion, is not “clerical support.” It centralizes authority over:

• Infrastructure and capital execution

• Cross-department coordination (DPW, Water)

• Coordination with external agencies (DEC/EFC/DOH/EPA were referenced)

• Compliance and reporting tied to major infrastructure funding streams

That is centralized executive authority over capital planning and infrastructure execution.

When you combine:

• Charter amendments entrenching executive staff roles

• A new executive infrastructure position reporting directly to the Mayor

• Qualifications being debated in proximity to a specific individual

The pattern is unmistakable.

Authority is being pulled upward.

The Qualifications Question

Infrastructure oversight at this scale is not symbolic.

It involves:

• Sewer and stormwater compliance

• Capital construction management

• Environmental regulatory oversight

• State and federal reporting

• Long-term capital planning

Traditionally, positions overseeing infrastructure at this level require engineering credentials.

Instead, the job has been framed as managerial.

That distinction matters.

If the work is technical, it should require technical qualifications. If it does not require technical qualifications, then it is executive oversight — and we are already paying people for that.

Either way, the role is not clerical. And in a city that floods with every hard rain, it should not be.

When job specifications are altered to eliminate credential requirements while compensation is raised to $175,147, the public has reason to ask whether the position was designed around infrastructure needs — or around a particular individual.

The Engineering Question Is Not Cosmetic

Councilman Wallace argued repeatedly that infrastructure oversight at this scale should require engineering credentials.

The Mayor countered that the City already employs engineers, that outside firms perform the technical work, and that the new role is managerial rather than technical.

But that defense collapses under its own logic.

If outside firms are performing the technical work, then the City is already paying consultants for engineering expertise.

And if the City’s internal engineers are advising and overseeing, then administrative oversight already exists in-house.

So what, exactly, is this $175,147 role adding? The answer appears to be executive layering — not technical or administrative depth.

Mount Vernon has openly discussed austerity, state intervention, and long-term fiscal instability.

And yet the approach here is to:

• Maintain heavy reliance on outside consultants

• Add another executive layer

• Avoid requiring deep in-house technical qualifications at the top infrastructure post

For a city staring down potential bankruptcy, continuing to spend heavily on consultants while lowering internal credential requirements is preposterous. Consultants are not cheaper. Layered oversight is not cheaper. Executive consolidation is not cheaper.

“Someone Else Is Paying for It” — The Fiscal Contradiction

The Mayor emphasized that approximately 67% of the salary would be funded through state infrastructure grants.

The implication: this is not a burden on local taxpayers.

But there is no such thing as “free” money.

Grant funding is still public money. It still creates:

• Fringe benefit obligations
• Pension liabilities
• Structural integration costs
• And long-term expectations of permanence.

Mount Vernon is (supposedly) operating under an austerity budget, is fiscally unstable, and will probably be bankrupt in two budget cycles.

Against that backdrop, converting a roughly $117,000 administrative role into a $175,147 executive role is not neutral. It is a gross expansion.

Grant money does not erase structural cost. It disguises it — until the grant cycle changes and the City is left holding the permanent structure.

Just look at the ARPA spending fiasco in Mount Vernon.

The Larger Failure

This is not about one job title. It is about the Mount Vernon trifecta — dysfunction, incompetence, and corruption — operating at the same time.

Dysfunction means decisions are reactive instead of strategic.

Incompetence means structural design is secondary to optics.

Corruption means power is used to protect and promote insiders rather than protect taxpayers.

This $175,147 position sits squarely inside that pattern.

• Instead of building deep technical capacity in-house, the City layers high paid executive management over expensive consultants.
• Instead of reducing structural exposure during fiscal strain, it expands permanent overhead.
• Instead of designing positions around institutional need, specifications are altered to reward loyalty.

None of those decisions exist in isolation.

They are consistent with a governing environment where structural discipline is secondary to political convenience.

As long as dysfunction, incompetence, and corruption operate together, outcomes will continue to look like this.

Not dramatic collapse. Not immediate scandal.

Just incremental structural erosion — one decision at a time.

My response is always the same: That is because Mount Vernon suffers from the government trifecta.

Let me explain.

There are three forces present, to some degree, in every government — local, state, or federal:

Dysfunction.
Incompetence.
Corruption.

No government is free from them entirely. And yet most governments still function.

Trash gets picked up. Permits get issued. Streetlights get fixed. Snow gets removed.

Why?

Because most governments can survive with one of those problems.

Some can even limp along with two.

But no government can operate effectively when all three take root at the same time.

That is The Trifecta. And when it sets in, residents start saying what we hear every day:

“Nothing works in Mount Vernon. Not the City, not the Library Board, not the School District.”

The Trifecta.

What the Trifecta Looks Like in Real Life

It doesn’t always look dramatic. Mostly, it looks administrative.

It looks like a family paying $150 through the City’s official Recreation system for a recess camp.

Receiving confirmation. Showing up at the Doles Center. And finding no camp.

Not once. Twice.

No clear cancellation notice. No automatic refund. No defined enrollment threshold. No transparent decision deadline. Then having to email multiple time to get a refund that should’ve been automatic.

Then, to get a refund, being sent nonsensical forms to complete requesting personal information—like Social Security numbers—that was not even required to book the camp in the first place.

That is dysfunction – that is a department with no operational controls.

And while “recess camp” might seem like a small thing, families rely on these programs for childcare during school breaks. They arrange work schedules. They plan their lives around what the City advertises.

So, when government treats public programs casually, residents pay the price. Literally.

Dysfunction Alone Is Annoying.

Incompetence Alone Is Embarrassing.

Corruption Alone Is Infuriating.

But when all three overlap, basic services stop working reliably.

Dysfunction means no clear workflow.
Incompetence means no one fixes it.
Corruption means no one is held accountable.

So what happens?

Programs get advertised without firm confirmation.
Money gets collected without clear safeguards.
Communication changes midstream.
Families show up to empty buildings.

And everyone shrugs and calls it “miscommunication.”

It isn’t.

It is structural decay.

Why Other Cities Don’t Collapse

Other municipalities deal with budget pressures.

They deal with politics.

They deal with personality conflicts.

But they install guardrails:

• Written policies and procedures, of which Mount Vernon has none
• Cancellation policies
• Defined enrollment minimums
• Automated refund systems
• Accountability chains

So even when one thing goes wrong, the system catches it.

That is how governments survive imperfection.

Mount Vernon has no guardrails.

This Is Why Reform Is Not Abstract

When people hear “government reform,” they think big theory. This isn’t theory.

It’s whether you have shit in your storm drains.

It’s whether you can get a permit in under a year.

It’s whether you can get an honest, legible, balanced budget on time.

It’s whether a streetlight at a major pedestrian and vehicle intersection gets fixed or stays broken for several years (Newsflash: it is still broken).

It’s whether you can get a FOIL response for basic records in under a year.

It’s whether your government openly and notoriously lies to you about things as basic as snow removal.

Or it can be as simple as whether you can rely on a City program you paid for.

When the trifecta takes hold, residents can expect none of these things. And they feel it in everyday life.

Not in speeches. In reality.

Reform NOW

Mount Vernon doesn’t suffer because of one bad day or one bad employee.

It suffers because dysfunction, incompetence, and lack of accountability are not isolated problems. They are the everyday. They are normalized. They are what defines this government administration. And corruption allows – even invites – this normalcy.

And when that happens, neighbors say the only phrase that fits: “Nothing works.”

But here is the truth:

Nothing works because the structure allows it not to.

When oversight is weak, dysfunction spreads.
When accountability is blurred, incompetence lingers.
When power is concentrated without guardrails, correction never comes, and corruption festers.

This is not about personalities. It is about systems.

And systems can be changed.

Real reform means installing structural guardrails:

• Clear lines of responsibility
• Professional management standards
• Defined workflows
• Automatic transparency
• Enforceable accountability

Mount Vernon does not need another apology for “miscommunication.”

It needs a government structure that makes incompetence harder and accountability unavoidable.

That is why reform cannot wait.

A group of residents is working to place structural reforms on the November 2026 ballot so voters — not insiders — can decide the future of this city.

You can review those proposed reforms at:

mvreform.org

Because when the system is broken, the answer isn’t another excuse. It’s reform.

Reform NOW.

Because if you live in Mount Vernon long enough, you start to notice a pattern.

Every time residents hit a wall — every time a situation gets bad enough that someone says surely the state will step in — we hear the same answer.

There’s nothing we can do.

City drifting toward financial disaster?
“There’s nothing we can do.”

A building department so dysfunctional dangerous structures sit for years and buildings collapse from neglect?
“There’s nothing we can do.”

Sewage and contamination flowing into stormwater drains?
“There’s nothing we can do.” But we will prop up the person responsible as some kind of water infrastructure expert…

Library board dysfunction and unanswered ethics complaints?
“Oh — you filed it a year ago? Sorry. There’s nothing we can do.”

A Comptroller constantly “losing” money and relying on payday loans just to stay afloat?
“There’s nothing we can do.”

City-approved development decisions that result in an apartment building on top of your house?
“Yeah, there’s nothing we can do.”

Open Meetings Law violations. FOIL violations. Transparency ignored.
“We provide guidance. We don’t enforce.”

Translation:
“There’s nothing we can do.”

Electric bills climbing higher than mortgages because the state allowed a virtual monopoly and regulators keep rubber-stamping increases?

They’ll issue a press release. They’ll condemn the situation. They’ll even hold a press conference. But when it comes to real relief?

“There’s nothing we can do.”

The State will claim, “but we do things for Mount Vernon” — just as Hochul emissary Pavan Naidu did, rattling off irrelevant bullet points that had nothing to do with what residents were actually asking for.

But nothing ever changes.

Look at the Building Department. The State supposedly went in. There were meetings. There was a report. And yet nothing changed. The department remains as dysfunctional as ever — the same lack of oversight, the same failures residents have been raising for years. It is all smokescreens and lip service.

The State’s own report — paraphrasing — acknowledged that the department failed to produce meaningful records and documentation. In any serious oversight process, that should have triggered real consequences. Instead, the State walked away.

And only months later, we got the Camelot Funeral Home situation — a horrifying example of what happens when oversight exists on paper but not in practice. Authorities found 13 decomposing bodies and 17 boxes of cremated remains inside an unlicensed facility operating in Mount Vernon. Families were still being misled, funeral services were still being held, and basic regulatory safeguards had clearly failed. The operator’s license had already been revoked, yet the business continued to function for months.

That didn’t happen overnight. It happened because inspections and enforcement were not happening when they should have — another failure of the same system everyone claims is being “addressed.”

This is the pattern: reports, talking points, and press conferences — but no sustained enforcement, no follow-through, and no meaningful change for residents.

So, let’s address that pink elephant over there in the corner:

What is the point of state government if it cannot — or will not — act when local government fails?

If oversight means no enforcement . . .

If authority means no action . . .

If every agency exists only to point to someone else . . .

Then what is the point? Why do we pay state taxes? Why do agencies exist that claim oversight but take no responsibility?

Why are residents left holding the bag while every level of government passes the buck?

Governor Kathy Hochul travels the state talking about helping “real New Yorkers.”

Mount Vernon residents are real New Yorkers.

We’ve written letters. Filed complaints. Requested oversight. Asked for intervention.

What we got back was campaign messaging. And the same answer:

“There’s nothing we can do.”

Governor Hochul may very well win reelection.

But it won’t be because people feel helped, protected, or supported.

It will be because too many real New Yorkers feel like they never had another option in the first place.

And that’s why local reform matters.

Because if the state won’t step in… if agencies won’t enforce… then residents have exactly one option left:

Fix the system ourselves — from the ground up.

There’s always something we can do — and we will.

Power to the People.