As the New York Representative of Blacks in Law Enforcement of America (BLEA), I am officially responding to Mayor Shawyn Patterson-Howard’s public statements concerning Officer Derek Williams.
The Mayor stated that Officer Williams was a “no show” for an opportunity to sit across the table to discuss his case, claiming he “chose not to show” and “refused to follow any directions” provided to support the process. Because Officer Williams is pursuing legal remedies against the City, it is not appropriate for him to litigate the matter on social media. I will therefore respond to the documented record, which shows that the issue is not cooperation but the City’s failure to follow the required legal process.
The record is clear: Officer Williams followed the legal process required by New York State law. He chose to pursue due process through the formal statutory channels rather than an informal meeting. The documented issue is the City’s failure, not Officer Williams’ cooperation.
On January 8, 2026, Officer Williams submitted his MV-5 Line of Duty Injury Report and formally invoked his rights under New York General Municipal Law §207-c by submitting a written request for a §207-c hearing. This is the statutory process established by state law. The submission was made while the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, Malcolm Clark, was present in the building.
At the time Officer Williams formally submitted his §207-c request, the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, Malcolm Clark, was in the building. Also present were the Police Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner, Captain Goldman, and the Human Resources Commissioner. This raises a fundamental question: Is the Mayor saying that none of these senior officials informed her that Officer Williams had formally invoked his rights under General Municipal Law §207-c? If she was not informed, how did that communication fail at so many levels of City government? If she was informed, then another question follows: Why was the §207-c hearing required to determine Officer Williams’ eligibility never scheduled?
This raises the central question: Why did the Mayor insist on an informal private meeting? She stated on the news that no paperwork had been filed. After finding that out, Williams filed the requested paperwork. Why was the legally required §207-c hearing never scheduled despite his formal request and a subsequent recommendation from Councilman André Wallace, Chairman of the Public Safety Committee?
In her ABC7 interview, the Mayor stated that no determination was ever made regarding whether Officer Derek Williams’ illness was job-related because, according to the City, he never filed paperwork under General Municipal Law §207-c. She further stated that the City had searched its records for any missing emails or paperwork and found none, and characterized the City’s decision to extend Officer Williams’ health insurance for six months as an “olive branch” and an act of “grace.”
Since the Mayor like to make comments. Then the Mayor should explain how Officer Williams was authorized to remain out of work for approximately thirty (30) days following his initial COVID-19 infection, while receiving full pay without the use of accrued sick or vacation leave, yet now asserts that no qualifying status or documentation existed. How could paperwork be missing when officer Willams was out for 30 days? Under what payroll code or administrative designation was Officer Williams compensated during this period, who approved that designation, and what contemporaneous records reflect the City’s decision to continue his pay? Where is the documentation supporting that decision, and why was the matter not referred at that time for formal review under New York General Municipal Law §207-c or other applicable COVID-related protections?
HOW IS SOMEONE OUT FOR 30 DAYS FOR COVID AND THERE IS NO DOCUMENTATION OF THAT ABSENSE? THE MAYOR SAID IT HERSELF, THERE IS NO PAPERWORK!
Furthermore, Officer Williams was actively discouraged from pursuing his rights. A Deputy Chief under the Mayor’s command told him that his injury did not qualify for §207-c benefits. That assessment was incorrect under both state and federal law. Once Officer Williams learned this and obtained proper guidance, he promptly filed all necessary paperwork with the City and the Department.
Officer Williams was never properly advised of his rights under state law (GML §207-c, including the COVID-19 line-of-duty presumption), federal law (FMLA, ADA), or related protections. No one from the Police Department’s Human Resources or City administration informed him of these rights or guided him through the process — even as he suffered life-altering kidney failure directly linked to his frontline service.
After a comprehensive legal memorandum was presented, Councilman André formally recommended the §207-c hearing. That recommendation was based on evidence and the law. Even so, and despite the City’s receipt of over $41 million in ARPA funds intended to support public safety workers impacted by COVID-19, the hearing was never granted. The PBA also failed to provide meaningful representation or correct guidance.
Blea Mount Vernon City Council Letter/ Derek Willams by Damon K Jones
Officer Williams’ position is grounded in state and federal law. The Mayor’s public criticism rests solely on his decision to follow the formal legal process rather than bypass it in favor of an informal sit-down. The key issue is why the City did not schedule the legally required §207-c hearing that had already been requested and recommended by Councilman André Wallace.
Councilman André Wallace, Chairman of the Public Safety Committee, reviewed the extensive medical documentation, federal and state laws, and appellate court decisions, and on March 18, 2026, formally recommended in writing that the City of Mount Vernon afford Officer Derek Williams a §207-c hearing. In his letter to Corporation Counsel Brian Johnson, Councilman Wallace emphasized the severity of Officer Williams’ condition and the urgent June 30, 2026 deadline, stating that time was of the essence. This official recommendation from the Chairman of the Public Safety Committee placed a clear responsibility on the Mayor, as chief executive, to act and schedule the legally required hearing. Despite this formal recommendation, the Mayor refused to move forward, choosing instead to ignore both the law and the advice of the Council’s Public Safety Committee Chairman.
The issue has never been cooperation. It has always been the City’s and the Police Department’s repeated failure to comply with state and federal law and to fulfill their duty to a 19-year veteran who contracted COVID-19 while performing frontline duties.
As the chief executive and head of leadership for the City of Mount Vernon, the Mayor Shawn Patterson Howard has a higher duty to ensure the accuracy of her public statements and to comply with established state law. Public criticism based on incomplete or inaccurate facts undermines public trust, damages the City’s credibility, and sets a poor example for leadership. The residents of Mount Vernon deserve transparency and adherence to the rule of law.
He submitted the MV-5 report, dated January 8, 2026.
He formally requested the §207-c hearing in writing January 8, 2026
The evidence and case law were presented in the legal memorandum.
The Public Safety Committee Chairman recommended the hearing after reviewing the record.
Yet the hearing never occurred.
These are the documented facts. The public can draw its own conclusions.
Mayor Patterson-Howard, your post portrays Officer Derek Williams as someone who refused to follow the process. The documented record shows otherwise. Officer Williams did what the law required. He formally submitted his §207-c request, presented his claim to the City Council, and invoked the legal process provided under New York law. The question is no longer what Officer Williams did. The question is: What did you and your administration do after that request was formally submitted? What actions did the City take to comply with its obligations under applicable state and federal law?
What is most troubling about your post is the emphasis you place on the fact that Officer Williams did not meet with you personally. There is nothing in New York General Municipal Law §207-c, or in the state and federal legal protections that have been cited in this matter, that required Officer Williams to meet privately with the Mayor before receiving the due process afforded by law. The law required a process. Officer Williams invoked that process.
After the evidence and applicable case law were presented to the City Council, Councilman André Wallace, Chairman of the Public Safety Committee, formally recommended that Officer Williams be granted a §207-c hearing. Yet that hearing was never approved.
If meeting with you was so important, then why wasn’t the statutory hearing—the legal forum established to determine whether Officer Williams’ illness was line-of-duty—granted? A private meeting with the Mayor is not a substitute for the due process required by law.
Officer Williams was not required to seek anyone’s personal approval. He was entitled to have his claim heard through the legal process established by New York law. That is the issue that remains unanswered today.
