Readers Split Over Executive Pay at Central Park Conservancy and 9/11 Museum After Post Exposés

New York readers responded with sharply divided views after recent New York Post reporting detailing six‑figure compensation packages for executives at the Central Park Conservancy and the National September 11 Memorial & Museum.

Letters published Sept. 8 framed the disclosures as evidence of a broader problem in the nonprofit sector, with some calling the pay levels “outrageous” for tax‑exempt organizations and others defending the salaries as market‑appropriate for institutions of significant scope and responsibility.

Several correspondents argued that nonprofit executives were earning “cushy” compensation with insufficient public accountability. "The fat cats are certainly raking it in at tax‑exempt nonprofits," wrote Bill Marsano of Manhattan, adding that the exposés were especially notable coming so close to Labor Day. Robert Rosenberg of Manhattan said politicians often award such posts to allies and described the arrangement as “a ripoff for taxpayers.” Donald Coles of Boynton Beach, Florida, called the disclosures a sign that “Democratic politicians… love to give away your tax dollars,” and urged continued scrutiny.

Some letters framed the issue in harsher terms. Mel Young of Lawrence labeled the central figure at the Conservancy a “parasite” and suggested reallocating funds toward 24‑hour park security, while others raised concerns about cronyism among nonprofit boards and the potential mismatch between tax‑exempt status and the size of executive pay packages.

Not all respondents endorsed the criticism. Stephen Sherrill of Manhattan defended the Conservancy, saying its management rescued Central Park from decay and provided "an amazing return on investment" that benefits the city economically and culturally. Sherrill argued that compensation cited in the reporting was not extraordinary in a competitive New York market for running an enterprise of the Conservancy’s scale.

The letters also reflected a broader civic debate about public and private roles in providing city services. Some writers called for privatization as a remedy for what they see as insufficient oversight of nonprofits, while others cautioned that strong nonprofit management produces public benefits that justify higher pay.

The Post’s package of reporting that prompted the letters appeared in late August and early September. One item, published Sept. 2 and headlined “Verdant pastures,” examined the Conservancy’s leadership compensation; a related story focused on salary disclosures at the 9/11 Memorial & Museum. The letters were collected and edited for publication Sept. 8.

Readers used the same letters page to register sharply divergent views on a separate opinion piece that praised former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and suggested the city needs a leader like him. Richard Siegelman of Plainview invoked Giuliani’s alleged role in events surrounding Jan. 6, 2021, writing that the former mayor had “helped incite the Capitol insurrection” and deserved a “Medal of Incitement,” while Michael D’Auria of Bronxville praised Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg for restoring safety and order during their tenures.

The exchange highlights the contested terrain around how New York’s civic institutions are run and funded, and how the public evaluates the tradeoffs between executive compensation, institutional performance and taxpayer oversight. The letters reflect both skepticism about the stewardship of tax‑exempt dollars and appreciation for the work of nonprofit managers whose organizations shape public life in the city.

The Post said readers wishing to submit their views could send letters with a full name and city of residence to letters@nypost.com; letters are subject to editing for clarity, length, accuracy and style.