Townes, who was first appointed commissioner in February 2021, brings more than 36 years of experience within the department, where he began his career as an Eligibility Examiner before rising through the ranks to Deputy Commissioner in March 2018 and ultimately Commissioner.
The Department of Social Services is Westchester County’s largest department, operating with an annual budget of approximately $750 million and a workforce of nearly 1,000 employees. The agency provides critical services including food assistance, housing support, medical assistance, child care, child support enforcement, and child and adult protective services to hundreds of thousands of county residents each year.
Announcing the reappointment, Jenkins praised Townes’ leadership, noting that he assumed the role during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic and has since modernized the department through a data-driven approach emphasizing customer service, staff development, innovation, and technology.
“The Department of Social Services provides crucial services for the county’s most overlooked residents,” CE Jenkins shared with Black Westchester. “As we face new economic challenges and uncertainty surrounding federal support for vulnerable populations, Commissioner Townes is the right person to continue leading the department.”
Townes thanked Jenkins for the opportunity to continue serving Westchester residents, saying the department’s mission is centered on protecting vulnerable individuals, strengthening families, and helping people regain stability during difficult times.
“I want to thank County Executive Jenkins for the opportunity to continue to serve the people in Westchester who need our help the most. Our work is about protecting the vulnerable, strengthening families, and supporting people in need so they can get back on their feet, and I am grateful to the Department’s tireless, dedicated employees for the commitment to that mission that they display every day,” Townes said.
He also emphasized his commitment to continuing the department’s modernization by expanding innovation, embracing new technology, strengthening leadership, and implementing best practices throughout the agency.
“As Commissioner, my work also is to build a resilient, efficient, 21st-century organization focused on innovation and best practices, fostering new ideas, efficiently using the newest technology, and building robust leadership across the whole department, and I’m grateful for the chance to continue the process of revitalizing the department.”
In addition to leading DSS, Townes serves as president of the Board of Directors of the New York Public Welfare Association, is an Elder on New York State’s Fatherhood Steering Committee, and mentors young people through Blue Nile Rights of Passage of Harlem and Westchester.
A lifelong Westchester resident, Townes is a graduate of North Carolina A&T State University and holds a Master of Public Administration from Pace University. He graduated from Woodlands High School in Hartsdale and currently resides in Dobbs Ferry.
“Leonard took the reins during one of the most difficult times the Department has faced, the COVID crisis, and has worked to revitalize the Department with a data-driven approach focusing on service, staff development, and innovative and efficient use of technology. Today we face new challenges stemming from both the economic environment and uncertainty about federal support for the vulnerable. Commissioner Townes is the right person to continue to lead DSS through the coming challenges and opportunities,” CE Jenkins added.
“A flood watch remains in effect through Tuesday morning for Dutchess, Ulster, Orange, Putnam, Rockland, and Westchester counties,” – National Weather Service
HUDSON VALLEY, N.Y. — Residents across the Hudson Valley are being urged to prepare for possible flash flooding as a Flood Watch remains in effect through early Tuesday.
According to the National Weather Service, multiple rounds of showers and thunderstorms are expected to bring up to three inches of rain, with locally higher amounts possible. Forecasters warn that the storms will be capable of producing very heavy downpours, creating the potential for scattered to numerous instances of flash flooding.
Flash flooding is most likely to occur in urban and low-lying areas, locations with poor drainage, roadways, and along small streams and creeks. Residents are encouraged to closely monitor weather alerts and be prepared to take immediate action if a Flash Flood Warning is issued.
Officials are urging the public to take the following precautions:
Avoid unnecessary travel during periods of heavy rainfall.
Never drive or walk through flooded roadways. Turn Around, Don’t Drown.
Stay informed by monitoring local weather forecasts and be prepared to move to higher ground if flooding develops.
Call 911 to report life-threatening emergencies.
Report downed power lines and power outages to Con Edison at 1-800-752-6633.
Mount Vernon residents should report downed trees and other non-emergency quality-of-life concerns by emailing cityhelp@mountvernonny.gov. Include the location and photos, if possible, to help crews respond more efficiently.
For the latest forecasts and weather alerts, visit the National Weather Service website at weather.gov/okx.
Con Edison crews have restored power to more than 166,800 of the approximately 173,700 customers whose service was impacted by extreme weather events from record-breaking heat to severe thunderstorms with destructive wind gusts. Westchester Restorations 95% – approximately 2,600 customers – should be complete by 7 p.m. on Monday, according to Con Ed!
MOUNT VERNON, N.Y. — June 28, 2026 — Environmental Leaders of Color (ELOC) celebrated the graduation of its second annual Student Environmental Ambassador Program on Sunday at the Luangisa African Collective in Mount Vernon, where Congressman George Latimer joined local and state leaders in recognizing students for their leadership and measurable contributions to environmental protection.
The graduates were honored for their work in ELOC’s “Don’t Strain Your Drain” initiative, a community campaign that educates residents about the environmental dangers of improperly disposing of used cooking oil and encourages responsible recycling to protect waterways and sewer infrastructure.
Students representing Port Chester, New Rochelle, and Mount Vernon brought more than 320 gallons of used cooking oil—approximately 2,406 pounds—to Sunday’s graduation ceremony alone. Since the program launched, Student Environmental Ambassadors have collected more than 600 gallons of used cooking oil, or approximately 4,718 pounds, preventing it from entering local drains and waterways.
Improperly discarded cooking oil poses significant environmental and infrastructure challenges throughout Southern Westchester. Local waterways, including the Bronx and Hutchinson rivers, are part of a watershed that ultimately drains into Long Island Sound. Just one gallon of cooking oil can contaminate up to one million gallons of water by creating an oxygen-blocking surface film and harming fish, birds, and other aquatic wildlife. Grease accumulation is also a leading cause of costly municipal sewer blockages, making the students’ efforts a direct investment in the health and sustainability of their communities.
During the ceremony, Congressman Latimer reflected on the importance of environmental education, noting that no comparable programs existed when he attended Mount Vernon High School. He praised ELOC for equipping young people with practical knowledge and leadership skills while encouraging residents to recycle used cooking oil rather than pour it down household drains.
“This graduating class has proven that young people are powerful agents of environmental change—their work makes a real, measurable difference in the communities they call home,” said Dr. Diana K. Williams, Executive Director of Environmental Leaders of Color.
Dr. Williams also announced the launch of ELOC’s new eight-week Pre-SAT and SAT Bootcamp for students in grades 9 through 12. The program, offered for approximately $250, reflects the organization’s continued commitment to academic achievement, environmental leadership, and civic engagement.
The graduation ceremony was attended by Congressman George Latimer; Christine Fils-Aime, Director of Constituent Services and Community Affairs representing State Senator Shelley Mayer; and certificates were presented on behalf of Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Westchester County Legislator David Tubiolo.
The graduating class included two students who will begin college this fall after completing ELOC’s two-year Student Environmental Ambassador Program.
About Environmental Leaders of Color (ELOC)
Environmental Leaders of Color (ELOC) is a Westchester County-based nonprofit organization dedicated to engaging, educating, and empowering young people to become leaders in environmental justice. Through hands-on environmental programming, civic partnerships, leadership development, and academic support, ELOC equips the next generation with the knowledge and skills to create healthier, more sustainable communities.
The truth is, for most people, Black athletes are not the first thing that comes to mind when it comes to American horse racing.
But it’s okay since that’s the picture many people inherited. However, it is also incomplete.
Why? Well, if you go back to the beginning of American horse racing, especially the Kentucky Derby, Black horsemen were not exactly side characters. They were the sport. We’re talking about jockeys, trainers, grooms, exercise riders, stable hands, handlers, and people who make horse racing possible.
And they were not just present, but dominant. That’s the part that seems forgotten. The early history of American racing was shaped by Black skill, Black labor, Black courage, and Black speed.
Names like Isaac Murphy, Jimmy Winkfield, Oliver Lewis, Ansel Williamson, Willie Simms, Alonzo Clayton, and Edward Brown made horse racing what it is today.
Let’s learn more about Black horse racing legends that everyone should know about.
The Problem With How Racing History Gets Told
Let’s first address the problem with the history of the sport. The truth is that most people focus on the horses and forget about the hands that move the horses. Yes, that makes sense. Horses are the stars. We had incredible moments like Secretariat’s run at Belmont, which will be forever recorded in history books.
But horse racing is not only a horse story. A horse does not train itself. It does not saddle itself and does not race itself. In other words, behind every great racehorse is a whole world of human skill that we somehow forget about.
And in early American racing, much of that skill came from Black horsemen. Yeah, most people don’t know about this.
That is where the story gets complicated, because Black expertise in racing came partly from the brutal realities of slavery and post-slavery labor. Enslaved and formerly enslaved Black men worked closely with horses, often because white owners depended on their knowledge while denying them freedom, credit, and power.
Sad, but the truth. However, they turned the tables quickly and became the driving forces of the sport, proving that they also belong in the champion circle. And they should be here. After all, when it comes to modern horse race betting online, the color and culture don’t make any difference.
But let’s learn more about the Black horse racing legends that should be remembered forever.
Oliver Lewis and the First Kentucky Derby
The first Kentucky Derby was run in 1875. The winning jockey was Oliver Lewis.
That alone should make his name impossible to forget.
Lewis rode Aristides to victory in the first Derby, and the horse was trained by Ansel Williamson, another Black horseman whose name also deserves much wider recognition. Imagine that for a moment. The first running of what became America’s most famous horse race was won by a Black jockey on a horse trained by a Black trainer.
That is not a minor detail.
That is the foundation.
And yet how many casual Derby fans know Oliver Lewis? How many people watching the race every May hear his name? How many school lessons about American sports history mention that Black riders helped define the Derby from the start?
Not enough.
Isaac Murphy Was Not Just Great. He was Astonishing.
Isaac Murphy is one of those athletes whose record still sounds fake even when you know it is true.
He won the Kentucky Derby three times. He was celebrated as one of the greatest jockeys of the 19th century. He became a national sports figure at a time when America was still dragging itself through Reconstruction, segregation, and the violent backlash against Black advancement.
Murphy was not simply a good jockey.
He was a master.
He had patience, timing, intelligence, balance, and the rare ability to make difficult race decisions look almost calm. That is often the mark of a truly great rider. They do not look like they are forcing the race. They look like they understand it before everyone else does.
Jimmy Winkfield: The Last Black Derby Winner
Jimmy Winkfield’s story is almost cinematic.
He won the Kentucky Derby in 1901 and 1902, becoming one of the few jockeys ever to win the race in back-to-back years. Then his American career became tangled in the reality Black jockeys were facing at the time: racism, threats, blocked opportunities, and a racing world becoming more hostile to the riders who had once dominated it.
Winkfield eventually went overseas and built an international career.
That part of his life is incredible. He rode and won in Europe. He became a major figure abroad. He lived through war, displacement, and reinvention. His life stretched far beyond the tidy version of racing history that stops at the Kentucky Derby finish line.
But the most painful fact remains this: Winkfield was the last Black jockey to win the Kentucky Derby.
That was in 1902.
Read that again.
Willie Simms and the Riders Who Deserve More Space
Isaac Murphy and Jimmy Winkfield are the big names, but they were not alone.
Willie Simms was another remarkable Black jockey, one of the great riders of his era and a winner of major races, including the Kentucky Derby. James “Soup” Perkins won the Derby as a teenager. Alonzo Clayton became the youngest jockey to win the Kentucky Derby when he won in 1892. Edward Brown was born enslaved, became a successful jockey, and later became a major trainer.
These are not small stories.
They are pieces of a much bigger world.
Final Thoughts
So, if we look back at history, we can clearly see that Black horse racing legends once dominated the sport. They rode the horses, trained them, and understood them very clearly.
Sadly, that’s not a thing anymore. Why? Nobody knows. It’s clear that something pushed Black riders and horsemen out of the center of the industry, but we’re all hoping that they will return once again.
The debate over birthright citizenship has grown so toxic that many refuse to ask the most basic question: What did the Fourteenth Amendment actually mean when the Reconstruction Congress ratified it in 1868?
When Justice Clarence Thomas questioned the prevailing interpretation of the Citizenship Clause, critics immediately denounced him. Some accused him of rewriting history. Others claimed he was undermining the very Amendment that finally secured citizenship for formerly enslaved Black Americans—or even suggested his position implied that Black Americans should lose their citizenship.
That charge is false. Thomas’s opinion did not question whether Black Americans are citizens. Instead, his analysis focused on the modern interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Amendment was adopted in 1868 precisely to overturn the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision and to establish citizenship for formerly enslaved people who had been denied it. Thomas’s analysis zeroed in on the historical meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Whether that interpretation is ultimately correct remains the subject of ongoing legal and historical debate among judges, historians, and constitutional scholars.
No serious person questions whether Black Americans deserve citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment itself settled that. The real issue is narrower and more precise: Does the modern reading of the Citizenship Clause reflect what the Reconstruction Congress intended when it wrote, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States”?
Those last six words—”subject to the jurisdiction thereof”—are doing the heavy lifting. For decades, courts have treated them as meaning little more than physical presence on U.S. soil, with narrow exceptions like children of diplomats. Justice Thomas argues that, in 1868, the phrase meant something deeper: complete political allegiance and subjection to the full authority of the United States, not mere territorial presence. Dismissing the inquiry itself does not serve truth or history.
Dr. Claude Anderson and Justice Clarence Thomas arrive at similar questions from different directions. Dr. Anderson has argued that the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th) were enacted primarily to secure rights, resources, and protections specifically for formerly enslaved Black Americans—native Black people—and no one else. As Dr. Anderson notes, these amendments, along with early civil rights laws, were written strictly and solely for Black ex-slaves to lift the incidents of slavery, guarantee equal treatment with Whites, and provide access to resources for competitiveness (such as the intended 40 acres and a mule). The 13thAmendmentt demanded equal treatment in all respects; the 14th placed an obligation on government to remedy the harms of slavery; and the 15th protected political rights. Early Supreme Court ruling, such as Dred Scott v. Sandford cases (1873,s affirmed that these protections were not intended for other groups. Justice Thomas, meanwhile, argues that the Citizenship Clause should be interpreted according to its original public meaning. While their reasoning differs, both have questioned whether modern interpretations remain faithful to theAdment’sssss original purpose.
The Fourteenth Amendment did not emerge from a vacuum. It was written to guarantee citizenship to those who had been denied it and to protect the rights of the newly freed. That history is not in dispute.
Precisely because of that history, another question deserves equal weight: Has America fully delivered on the constitutional promise made primarily to the people the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to protect?
Nearly 160 years later, Black Americans still face stubborn disparities in wealth, homeownership, family stability, health outcomes, and control over institutions that shape their communities. These facts do not change the legal meaning of the Citizenship Clause, but they demand honest reflection on whether the broader Reconstruction project—economic independence, institutional ownership, and real power—has been realizedAmerica’smerica’smerica’s
America’s demographics have also shifted dramatically since 1868. At the time of thAmendment’s ratificationon and for much of the 20th century, Black Americans were thlargestst minority group and the clear second-largest population overall after White Americans (who comprised roughly 85-90% of the population). Today, following the major immigration reforms of 1965 and expansive birthright citizenship policies, the ranking has changed significantly. As of recent Census data, non-Hispanic Whites remain the largest group (around 57-59%), followed by Hispanics (any race) at roughly 19-20%, with Black Americans (non-Hispanic) at about 12.5-13.5%—now the third-largest group, behind both Whites and Hispanics, and ahead of Asians (around 6-7%). Black Americans have effectively gone from the clear #2 demographic position to near the bottom among major groups.
The modern interpretation of birthright citizenship has extended constitutional protections and access to public benefits—originally crafted in the Reconstruction era to address the unique harms inflicted on formerly enslaved Black Americans—to anchor babies (children born to non-citizen parents) and millions of others without the same historical claim. This has created an expanded inheritance of entitlements, resources, and political leverage that dilutes thAnt’s’o’i’i’snalalalal focus and intensifies competition for jobs, housing, education, and government aid in Black communities.
This is not an argument for or against any particular immigration policy. It is simply historical and policy reality. It raises practical questions about resource competition, political representation, schools, jobs, and whether unlimited birthright citizenship aligns with the original intent or serves the long-term interests of the very communities thAmendmentnt was meant to uplift.
The ramifications for Black America are sobering. Without a deliberate return to the original purpose of the Reconstruction Amendments—coupled with a serious commitment to internal economic self-determination, cooperative ownership, institution-building, and measurable outcomes—Black Americans risk permanent marginalization. Demographic dilution, combined with the sharing of specially intended resources and political power with ever-growing numbers of other groups, will continue to erode relative influence, intensify economic pressures, and leave the promises of true freedom, justice, and equality unfulfilled.
The core constitutional question remains: Should the Fourteentht Amendment interpreted to accord withby its original public meaning in 1868, or by later judicial interpretations and evolving doctrine? That is a debate about fidelity to the text and history—not a proxy for hostility toward immigrants or indifference to Black Americans.
Too often, our public discourse replaces careful analysis with accusations. Question the modern interpretation of birthright citizensh,ip anr’r’rere called anti-immigrant. Defend the prevailing vi,ew anr’r’rere accused of ignoring thAmendment’s’s purpose. Neither charge advances understanding.
The Constitution deserves better. Justice Thomas may be right. He may be wrong. But asking whether courts have stayed true to the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment is not an assault on thAmendmentnt—it is the kind of rigorous inquiry a constitutional republic demands from judges, scholars, and citizens alike.
The Fourteenth Amendment is one of the most transformative provisions in our constitutional order. It secured citizenship after centuries of denial and helped extend equal protection under the law. Its text should be read with care. Its history should be studied with precision. Its original purpose—protecting and empowering Black Americans—must never be forgotten.
Whethetoday’s’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause faithfully carries out that purpose is a question worthy of serious, evidence-based debate. Not slogans. Not personal attacks. Not political theater.
A constitutional republic grows stronger when its people are willing to confront difficult questions honestly. The Fourteenth Amendment deserves nothing less.
BRONX, N.Y. — Veteran Action Now is calling on veterans, military families, community leaders, and supporters to stand in solidarity with those who have served the nation by attending a press conference on Saturday, July 4, in response to comments the organization says unfairly disparaged America’s veterans.
The press conference will take place from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. outside the Bronx County Supreme Court, located at 851 Grand Concourse, Bronx, New York.
According to Veteran Action Now, the event was organized following remarks attributed to Darializa Avila Chevalier that reportedly characterized veterans as perpetrators of “war crimes.” The organization says such statements are offensive, divisive, and disrespectful to the men and women who have served in the United States Armed Forces.
Other news outlets have reported other social media posts attributed to Darializa Avila Chevalier that described U.S. veterans as “child murderers”. One post widely reported by the media stated:
“You may even get a free trip to Europe soon. Might as well. If you make it back, get the cardboard box they give vets as a reward for war crimes and chill after that.”
“Veterans answered the call to defend this country and uphold the Constitution,” Veteran Action Now said in a statement. “They deserve respect, not contempt. Language that mocks their sacrifice or paints all who served with the same broad and hateful brush has no place in public life.”
Organizers say the July 4 gathering is intended to send a clear message that attacks on the character and integrity of veterans will not go unanswered. They describe the event as both a public rebuke of anti-veteran rhetoric and a demonstration of support for veterans throughout the Bronx, New York City, and across the country.
Veteran Action Now is encouraging veterans, military families, elected officials, faith leaders, community organizations, and members of the public to attend and stand together in defense of those who have worn the nation’s uniform.
The organization says the issue extends beyond a single controversial statement.
“For Veteran Action Now, this moment is bigger than one statement,” the organization said. “It is about drawing a clear line against rhetoric that dishonors those who served and reinforcing a basic principle: veterans must be treated with dignity, gratitude, and truth.”
Event Information
What: Veteran Action Now Press Conference
Date: Saturday, July 4, 2026
Time: 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Location: 851 Grand Concourse, Bronx, NY 10451 (Bronx County Supreme Court)
Who Should Attend: Veterans, military families, advocates, elected officials, faith leaders, community organizations, and supporters.
For additional information, contact Veteran Action Now Founder and CEO Kevin C. Meggett at 614-735-5713 or Kevincmeggett@gmail.com.
For years, we have watched friendships dissolve, careers collapse, and businesses face boycotts simply because individuals supported Donald Trump or dared to vote Republican. Celebrities have been publicly shamed, influencers “canceled,” and everyday people pressured to choose between their politics and their livelihoods. The message has been uncompromising: Support Trump, and we will not support you.
If that is the standard, then why does the BET Awards remain one of the most celebrated nights in Black entertainment?
This is not a rhetorical question. It is a serious challenge to our consistency.
BET is no longer an independently Black-owned network. It operates under Paramount Skydance, led by CEO David Ellison, son of Oracle founder Larry Ellison. Larry Ellison has poured tens of millions of dollars into causes and groups supporting Donald Trump, including roughly $45 million to pro-Trump efforts, while maintaining a close personal relationship with the president.
Yet every year, Black artists, executives, and fans gather for the BET Awards. Red carpets are rolled out. Performances trend. Influencers post glamorous photos. Advertising revenue flows. And few seem interested in asking who ultimately owns the platform and where the profits go.
This reveals a glaring double standard. When an individual Black entertainer expresses support for Trump, the response is swift and severe—lost opportunities, fan backlash, and accusations of betrayal. But when a massive media conglomerate with clear ties to Trump-aligned ownership profits from Black culture? Silence. Celebration. Business as usual.
Are our boycotts and cancellations based on principle—or on convenience?
If political affiliation, donations, and ownership matter, they must matter equally. We cannot apply harsh scrutiny to individuals while giving corporations a pass. That is not economic activism. It is selective outrage.
This inconsistency extends beyond one awards show. For decades, Black leaders and thinkers—from Booker T. Washington to modern voices like Claud Anderson—have emphasized ownership, not mere access or visibility. True power comes from controlling institutions, circulating dollars within our communities, and building wealth through ownership. We talk about “buying Black” and supporting Black businesses, yet one of our premier cultural events funnels significant profits to a multibillion-dollar empire with leadership deeply connected to Trump-world interests.
The selective approach undermines the very economic empowerment we claim to seek. Black consumer spending power exceeds $1.8 trillion annually. Redirecting even a portion of that toward genuine ownership could transform communities. But ignoring corporate ownership in our biggest cultural moments means leaving real power—and real money—on the table for others.
The issue is larger than politics. It is about integrity. If we demand accountability from individuals, we must demand it from the platforms and corporations that profit from our talent, viewership, and culture. Otherwise, we are not practicing principled economic nationalism—we are engaging in performative symbolism.
Black America deserves better than convenient outrage. We deserve consistent principles, critical thinking about ownership, and strategies that prioritize long-term empowerment over short-term celebration. It is time to move beyond symbolism and demand real economic power.
The conversation starts with honesty. Let’s have it.
Ask people what makes them feel connected to where they live, and the answers usually go beyond roads, buildings, or services. They mention the annual festival they attend with their family, the mural that transformed a forgotten block, or the local theater production that filled a Wednesday night with neighbors they’d never spoken to before.
Arts and culture often operate quietly in the background of community life, but they shape how people interact with each other and how they feel about the places they call home.
Bringing People Together in Shared Spaces
One of the most visible benefits of arts and culture is their ability to draw people into the same space. Community festivals, cultural celebrations, outdoor concerts, and art exhibitions give residents a reason to gather. Unlike many organized events that target a specific demographic, arts and cultural activities tend to attract a mix of ages, backgrounds, and interests.
A local food and music festival, for example, might bring together families, retirees, students, and business owners who would otherwise never cross paths. Many community festivals have unique themes and features that strengthen culture, whether they’re spotlighting local beverages and food, up-and-coming musicians, or holiday traditions.
Creating a Sense of Local Identity
Every community has a distinct character. Arts and culture help express it. Public art projects, local museums, heritage events, and cultural celebrations reflect the stories, traditions, and experiences that make a place unique. They give longtime residents something to recognize and introduce newcomers to the area’s identity.
Walk through two different towns, and you’ll often notice the difference immediately. One may feature murals celebrating local history; another hosts regular cultural events highlighting the backgrounds of its residents. These elements give people something to identify with and contribute to a genuine sense of pride in where they live.
Supporting Local Businesses and Public Spaces
Arts and culture events bring practical economic benefits too.
When a community hosts an art fair, theater production, or cultural event, people spend time in surrounding shops, cafes, and restaurants. Increased foot traffic benefits local businesses while helping public spaces feel active and welcoming — something that’s especially noticeable in town centers that invest in creative programming.
A street with public artwork, outdoor performances, or seasonal cultural events tends to attract more visitors than one that goes quiet after business hours. The result isn’t just increased spending; it also builds a stronger connection between people and the spaces they use every day.
Encouraging Participation Rather Than Observation
Many of the strongest community benefits come from active participation. Art classes, community theater groups, dance workshops, photography clubs, and cultural organizations give residents a chance to contribute rather than just attend.
When people work together on a mural, rehearse for a local production, or plan a cultural celebration, they build relationships around a shared activity. The goal isn’t always a polished final product. More often, the value is in the process itself.
These opportunities are particularly meaningful for people looking to meet others, pick up new skills, or get more involved in local life.
Connecting Different Generations and Backgrounds
Communities are strongest when people from different groups have regular opportunities to interact. Arts and cultural activities create those opportunities naturally.
A community festival might feature performances from several cultural traditions. An art workshop could bring together participants who have little else in common. A local history project might pair older residents sharing stories with younger ones, helping document them.
These interactions help people understand different perspectives, and they give traditions and knowledge a path from one generation to the next.
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.
Screenshot
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.
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.
We’ve been told loyalty to the Democratic machine is loyalty to the party, that patience is a virtue, and that pushing back on the status quo is naive. I’ve sat in enough rooms to tell you that’s not strategy. That’s self-preservation dressed up as wisdom, and voters are done buying it.
This past week’s primaries across New York told the story plainly. Candidates who owe nothing to the old alliances of big money and corporate donors are winning, not because voters suddenly became radicals, but because people are exhausted by leaders who talk at them instead of with them.
I had a conversation recently with a male Black political consultant, well respected in Harlem, with decades in local politics. We got into Mamdani, and two things stood out. First, a fair ask: that he do more direct, sustained work with the Black community, a critique I take seriously. Second, when I asked why he’d still back Cuomo, a man who left office facing thirteen sexual misconduct allegations, two settled by the state for close to a million dollars combined, plus ethical violations and court costs we footed, more energy went into doubting Mamdani than reckoning with that record.
When I mentioned Mamdani had just closed a twelve billion dollar budget gap, the largest since the Great Recession, without raising property taxes or cutting a single assistance program, by ordering every agency to appoint a Chief Savings Officer to root out waste, he wasn’t aware of it. His response: “Well, I’m curious to see how this plays out.”
That response is the whole problem. We’ve been told government has to be slow and disappointing, and even people who should be paying the closest attention, especially Black and brown communities who’ve borne the brunt of “the way things are done,” have internalized that trying something different is naive. It isn’t. It’s overdue. Did it not matter that these policies would directly benefit communities like his own?
You saw the same dynamic closer to home, in the Greenburgh Town Supervisor primary. Paul Feiner has held that office for more than thirty years, long enough that voters were hungry for change, just not change handed to them by the same leadership that gave us Eric Adams and Andrew Cuomo. Barry McGoey ran as the challenger, heavily endorsed by our Westchester County Democratic Committee, of which I am a member, with money, institutional muscle, and slanderous, manipulative tactics behind him. McGoey, a registered Republican from 1997 to 2006, raised more than half his campaign funds from Yonkers-linked unions tied to his prior work there. And still, Feiner won. Greenburgh wasn’t willing to trade a supervisor known for picking up the phone for every constituent for a candidate manufactured by party leadership.
The poster child for this leadership style is Congressman George Latimer, who built his career as a man of the people and now, after taking AIPAC and corporate money, won’t hold town halls, calling the political climate “too toxic.” Check his voting record against his donor list and draw your own conclusions. But technology and social platforms, the very tools the establishment hoped to use to control the narrative, have instead handed voters the receipts.
I’ve sat inside this Democratic committee and watched it happen: the WCDC is shamefully tilted toward conventional, corporate-backed candidates, and punishes anyone who breaks from that mold, especially progressives and anyone critical of Israel’s policies. I’ve watched leadership change voting thresholds on the fly, from two-thirds to a simple majority, whenever it benefited their preferred candidate, as it did for the town clerk position a few years back, regardless of what the bylaws say.
That is not democracy. That is a committee protecting itself instead of the voters it exists to serve. They poured resources into McGoey and gave Feiner nothing simply because he wasn’t their chosen man, and to date still haven’t acknowledged this week’s local Democratic victories.
Mamdani winning, Feiner winning: different races, same thread. Voters are doing their own math now, and aren’t afraid to say when it doesn’t add up. They’re not moved by labels, and they’re not scared into compliance. Leadership built on obedience and donor relationships is watching that model collapse, and the only thing left for them is to decide whether to lead differently, or get out of the way for people who will
