Originally released by the City of New Carrollton

For Press Inquires:

Yvette Watson

240-599-4602 | ywatson@newcarrolltonmd.gov

NEW CARROLLTON, September 14, 2026 -- On September 9, 2026, the City Council for the City of New Carrollton voted 4–1 to expel Mayor Phelecia Nembhard from office pursuant to Charter Section C-20(E)(2) and (5). This statement provides context for the Council’s actions and is meant to restore trust, provide transparency, and inform the residents.

On October 22, 2025, the Council instituted a hiring freeze via Resolution 26-03. This Resolution required the administration to request permission before filling any vacant positions or creating any new positions. During the ten months to follow, the Mayor requested exceptions to the hiring freeze, with the most recent requests being made on August 19, 2026.

On that day, all but one of the requests to hire were granted by the Council in a 3-1 vote. The Council expressly denied the position of “Director of Public Works” after lengthy debate.

On August 22, 2026, the Mayor informed the City Manager and Director of Human Resources of her plan to reinstate two former employees into their former roles, specifically the Code Enforcement Manager (never presented to the Council) and Director of Public Works (expressly denied by the Council).

The City of New Carrollton terminated the employment of the Code Enforcement Manager for cause in January 2026. The Director of Public Works left the City with a severance agreement in May 2026. Both roles were subject to the hiring freeze. The Director of Public Works can only be hired after a majority vote by the Council, following a recommendation to the Mayor by the City Manager. In addition, the City Code also provides that code enforcement officers can only be hired with Council approval; however, this provision has not been enforced in recent history.

On August 22, 2026, the City Manager responded to Mayor Nembhard’s email by warning her that this would violate the hiring freeze imposed by the Council. The Mayor’s reply made the two subordinate employees feel intimidated and fearful that their jobs would be in jeopardy if they did not comply with what they believed was an unlawful request. Ultimately, the City Manager added the City Attorney to the email chain, and the City Attorney also advised the Mayor that Council approval was required. The Council reviewed this email exchange, and it cannot be made public for legal reasons. These exchanges will be provided to the court if legal action is taken, as we believe the court will protect them from public disclosure while considering them. The emails are jarring and completely refute the public narrative the Mayor is asserting in her defense, which her supporters, including elected officials, are basing their

support on.

On August 24, 2026, Mayor Nembhard illegally executed and countersigned a contract with the former Director of Public Works, which seems to confirm his reinstatement to the position. Contrary to the Mayor’s public statements that the employees were never reinstated, both employees showed up for work and were at City Hall from 8 am to 5 pm on August 24, 2026. Further, and most damning to the Mayor’s aggressive public statements that they were never reinstated, an email dated August 24, 2026, to the City Manager, the Director of Human Resources, and the City Attorney flatly stating: “They started today.” Both employees returned each day from August 25 until August 27, 2026. The employees were seen by many staff members and security camera footage provides evidence of their presence at City Hall each day. Significantly, City policy does not permit non-employees to enter the secured areas they were permitted by the Mayor.

One day later, August 25, 2026, the Mayor emailed the Council, in two separate emails, confirming that she reinstated the two former employees. The emails are clear. Mayor Nembhard was not requesting reinstatement and was not providing a plan or proposal for reinstatement, as she has repeatedly told the public. Any objective person would not interpret her email as anything other than what it actually is – notice that these individuals were now employees of the City. For the Code Enforcement Manager, the email authored by the Mayor provides her rationale for his reinstatement, but many misstatements regarding the employee’s history with the City were made. For the Director of Public Works, Mayor Nembhard also provided her rationale for her decision to reinstate, specifically highlighted the recommendations from a consultant as a justification. The consultant referenced never recommended reinstatement for this or any other employee.

Upon becoming aware of the situation, the Council requested Chair Rosenberg convene a closed session meeting that would include the City Manager and the City Attorney to seek legal advice. On August 26, 2026, the City Manager resigned as she was not willing to break the law. That day a closed session was held, the Council reviewed additional evidence consisting of emails between the City Manager, the Director of Human Resources, and the Mayor concerning the hiring of these individuals. The Council along with the City Attorney interviewed the City Manager at length and reviewed her reasons for resigning. At the end of that meeting, it was decided that Chair Rosenberg would speak directly with Mayor Nembhard on Thursday, August 27, 2026, to invite her to meet with the Council in closed session to provide an explanation for hiring the two employees.

A Council Meeting was scheduled on August 29, 2026, to offer Mayor Nembhard due process, but the Council was informed the Mayor’s legal counsel would not be available. The meeting was rescheduled for September 3, 2026. Mayor Nembhard decided to proceed without legal counsel present. The Council, the City Attorney, and Mayor Nembhard met for two hours on September 3, 2026, to discuss the matter. During the lengthy closed session, the Mayor was given as much time as she needed to speak freely, to answer questions, and to counter the evidence. Her assertions in the closed session, compared to the emails she personally crafted, will unequivocally demonstrate to a judge, residents, elected officials, and the media that her narratives are patently false. When she concluded, the Council returned to open session to schedule the meeting for September 9, 2026 and discuss the format of the special meeting. Councilmembers Malave and Urbina spoke at length about wanting to have the public hear from each Councilmember on the record in addition to having the residents be able to hear directly from the Mayor before the vote.

During the meeting on September 9, 2026, there were several misstatements of fact put on the record by Mayor Nembhard. The employee rehired to serve as Code Enforcement Manager never filed a grievance during his time employed by the City. He filed an ethics complaint against an elected official, which had no bearing on his employment. The Ethics Board dismissed the complaint after an investigation before the employee was terminated by the City in January 2026.

The City is not paying the former public works director to stay home. Upon separation from employment in May 2026, he started receiving a severance package of six months that included health benefits. At the time the Council approved the settlement, the separation was final.

The Mayor wrote, in conjunction with his reinstatement, the City and Mr. Barclay, have mutually agreed to rescind the May 2026 mutual separation agreement. Thereby restoring his employment with the City as the Director of Public Works. A contradiction to the Mayor’s statement that reinstatement did not occur.

View the timeline of events prior to the New Carrollton City Council’s vote on Mayor Nembhard’s forfeiture of office on September 9, 2026.