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.

Charter amendments can serve many purposes. Some are technical or corrective. Others are consequential. This change falls squarely in the latter category.

The City Charter is the people’s document—much like the U.S. Constitution. It is the rulebook for how Mount Vernon government works. It defines how power is organized, where authority sits, and what limits apply. Because of that, the Charter is not supposed to be changed casually, quietly, or without public consent.

By writing the Chief of Staff and Deputy Chief of Staff positions directly into the Charter, the City did not merely approve hires or job titles. It permanently created high-level executive offices and assigned them defined authority over City departments, boards, and commissions. That affects how power is exercised inside City Hall, not just who happens to hold a particular job at a particular moment.

When a change of that magnitude is proposed, state law does not allow City officials to decide it on their own. It requires a referendum—meaning the question must appear on the ballot and voters get the final say.

That did not happen here.

Instead, this charter amendment was handled as if it were routine legislation. It moved through the same process used for minor local laws, with no serious effort to alert residents that the City’s governing document was being altered and no opportunity for voters to decide whether they agreed with the change.

The Mayor’s public hearing was held at 9:30 in the morning on December 30, between major holidays, when most people were at work, traveling, or otherwise unavailable. A single weekday morning hearing at year’s end does not amount to meaningful public engagement for a charter amendment of this significance. And regardless of turnout, a hearing cannot substitute for a referendum when the law requires one. Public comment is not voter approval. A hearing lets people speak; a referendum lets people decide.

The stated justification for this amendment was that codifying these roles would “modernize and professionalize” the Mayor’s office. Labels do not change legal reality. Calling something modernization does not make it harmless, and it does not erase the obligation to obtain voter approval when that obligation exists.

There has been no explanation of why these positions needed to be written into the Charter at all, rather than addressed through ordinary staffing and budgeting. There has been no explanation of why voters were excluded from the decision. And there has been no acknowledgment that altering how executive authority is structured is exactly the kind of change the public is entitled to weigh in on.

This was not an isolated misstep. It reflects a familiar pattern in Mount Vernon: significant decisions are minimized in public presentation, rushed through narrow procedural windows, and structured to avoid meaningful public participation. Rebranding that approach as “modernization” does not make it lawful—or democratic.

This is not about whether a Mayor should have senior staff. Every Mayor does. It is about whether City officials can rewrite the City’s rulebook as if it were ordinary legislation, and whether the public’s right to approve major changes to how government works can be treated as optional.

When that happens, the Charter stops being a safeguard and starts being a suggestion.

The remedy is straightforward. The City should repeal this local law. If officials believe these positions truly belong in the Charter, they should put the question to the voters and let residents decide. That is how the law is supposed to work—and that is the point of having a Charter in the first place.