Mayor Van Johnson named African American Mayors Association president
'As we continue to build on the legacy of the African American Mayors Association and advocate for the needs of the over 500 mayors within our growing organization, I am delighted to welcome Mayor Van R. Johnson II as our new President,' said AAMA CEO, Phyllis Dickerson. 'Mayor Johnson's dedication to public service and his innovative approach to city leadership make him a perfect choice to lead our organization into the future. We are eager to support his vision for our member cities and communities. I also want to thank Mayor Steven Reed for his incredible service to our cities and our organization this past year.
During his term, Mayor Reed elevated the organization's national profile and expanded its reach through bold initiatives centered on equity and opportunity. He convened AAMA's inaugural Voting Rights Summit in partnership with When We All Vote, brought a delegation of Black mayors to Silicon Valley to forge connections with tech and venture capital leaders, and launched The Forum with the Black Economic Alliance Foundation to accelerate Black economic mobility.
'Serving as President of the African American Mayors Association has been one of the most fulfilling roles I've ever taken on. Together, we advanced bold ideas around economic mobility, fairness, and innovation—because our communities deserve nothing less,' said outgoing AAMA President Mayor Steven Reed. As I pass the baton to Mayor Van Johnson, I do so with pride and optimism. He brings the leadership, passion, and vision needed to take this organization to even greater heights.'
Mayor Johnson, a lifelong public servant and leader, has served as Mayor of Savannah since 2020. He is recognized for his commitment to equity, community engagement, and sustainable growth in one of Georgia's most historic cities. Previously, Johnson served four terms as alderman for the Savannah City Council's 1st District. Prior to his election as AAMA President, Mayor Johnson served as the organization's Treasurer and has been an active member of the Board of Trustees.
'I am deeply honored to serve as President of the African American Mayors Association,' said Savannah Mayor Van R. Johnson II. 'I look forward to working alongside my colleagues to advocate for the needs of our cities at the national level. Together, we will continue to address the pressing challenges facing our communities, from public safety and economic opportunity to health equity and infrastructure investment.'
During his one-year term as AAMA President, Mayor Johnson plans to focus on strengthening public safety, supporting minority-owned businesses, fostering workforce development, and championing equitable infrastructure investments. He also aims to enhance collaboration with federal partners and drive forward policies that improve quality of life for residents in cities across the country.
Mayor Johnson's 2025 AAMA policy priorities are focused on the theme 'Let's Build,' building new relationships, building AAMA's capacity areas and building AAMA's legacy.
In addition to announcing its 2025 president, AAMA also approved its Board of Trustees during the Annual Conference:
1st Vice President – Mayor Brandon Scott (Baltimore, MD)
2nd Vice President – Mayor Phillip Jones (Newport News, VA)
Treasurer – Mayor Errick Simmons (Greenville, MS)
Secretary – Mayor LaToya Cantrell (New Orleans, LA)
President Emeritus – Mayor Steven Reed (Montgomery, AL)
President Emeritus – Mayor Shawyn Patterson-Howard (Mt. Vernon, NY)
President Emeritus – Mayor Frank Scott, Jr. (Little Rock, AR)
Board Member – Mayor Vince Williams (Union City, GA)
Board Member – Mayor Eric Adams (New York, NY)
Board Member – Mayor Kim Thomas (Richmond Heights, OH)
Board Member – Mayor Vi Lyles (Charlotte, NC)
Board Member – Mayor Leonardo Williams (Durham, NC)
Board Member – Mayor Keith James (West Palm Beach. FL)
Board Member – Mayor Victoria Woodards (Tacoma, VA)
Board Member – Mayor Bruce Harrell (Seattle, WA)
Board Member – Mayor Yadira Ramos-Herbert (New Rochelle, NY)
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
26 minutes ago
- NBC News
Poll shows decline in belief that Blacks and Asians face racial discrimination
Slightly less than half of U.S. adults believe that Black people face "a great deal" or "quite a bit" of discrimination in the United States, according to a new poll. That's a decline from the solid majority, 60%, who thought Black Americans faced high levels of discrimination in the spring of 2021, months after racial reckoning protests in response to the police killing of George Floyd. Significant numbers of Americans also think diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, also known as DEI, are backfiring against the groups they're intended to help, according to the survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, including many people who belong to those groups. The findings suggest Americans' views on racial discrimination have shifted substantially since four years ago, when many companies launched efforts to promote diversity within their workforces and the products they sold. Since then, many of those companies have reversed themselves and retreated from their diversity practices, a trend that's accelerated this year under pressure from President Donald Trump, a Republican who has sought to withhold federal money from schools and companies that promote DEI. Now, it's clear that views are changing as well as company policies. Claudine Brider, a 48-year-old Black Democrat in Compton, California, says the concept of DEI has made the workplace difficult for Black people and women in new ways. "Anytime they're in a space that they're not expected to be, like seeing a Black girl in an engineering course ... they are seen as only getting there because of those factors," Brider said. "It's all negated by someone saying, 'You're only here to meet a quota.'" Reversal in views of racial discrimination The new poll finds 45% of U.S. adults think Black people face high levels of discrimination, down from 60% in the spring of 2021. There was a similar drop in views about the prevalence of serious discrimination against Asian people, which fell from 45% in the 2021 poll — conducted a month after the Atlanta spa shootings, which killed eight people, including six women of Asian descent — to 32% in the current survey. There's no question the country has backtracked from its "so-called racial reckoning" and the experiences of particular groups such as Black people are being downplayed, said Phillipe Copeland, a professor at Boston University School of Social Work. Americans' views about discrimination haven't shifted when it comes to all groups, though. Just under half of U.S. adults, 44%, now say Hispanic people face at least "quite a bit of discrimination," and only 15% say this about white people. Both numbers are similar to when the question was last asked in April 2021. Divisions on the impact of DEI on Black and Hispanic people The poll indicates that less than half of Americans think DEI has a benefit for the people it's intended to help. About 4 in 10 U.S. adults say DEI reduces discrimination against Black people, while about one-third say this about Hispanic people, women and Asian people. Many — between 33% and 41% — don't think DEI makes a difference either way. About one-quarter of U.S. adults believe that DEI actually increases discrimination against these groups. Black and Hispanic people are more likely than white people to think DEI efforts end up increasing discrimination against people like them. About 4 in 10 Black adults and about one-third of Hispanic adults say DEI increases discrimination against Black people, compared with about one-quarter of white adults. There is a similar split between white adults and Black and Hispanic adults on assessments of discrimination against Hispanic people. Among white people, it's mostly Democrats who think DEI efforts reduce discrimination against Black and Hispanic people. Only about one-quarter of white independents and Republicans say the same. Pete Parra, a 59-year-old resident of Gilbert, Arizona, thinks that DEI is making things harder for racial minorities now. He worries about how his two adult Hispanic sons will be treated when they apply for work. "I'm not saying automatically just give it to my sons," said Parra, who leans toward the Democratic Party. But he's concerned that now factors other than merit may take priority. "If they get passed over for something," he said, "they're not going to know (why)." About 3 in 10 say DEI increases discrimination against white people The new poll shows that Americans aren't any more likely to think white people face discrimination than they were in 2021. And more than half think DEI doesn't make a difference when it comes to white people or men. But a substantial minority — about 3 in 10 U.S. adults — think DEI increases discrimination against white people. Even more white adults, 39%, hold that view, compared with 21% of Hispanic adults and 13% of Black adults. The recent political focus on DEI has included the idea that white people are more often overlooked for career and educational opportunities because of their race. John Bartus, a 66-year-old registered Republican in Twin Falls, Idaho, says that DEI might have been "a good thing for all races of people, but it seems like it's gone far left." It's his impression that DEI compels companies to hire people based on their race or if they identify as LGBTQ+. "The most qualified person ought to get a job based on their merit or based on their educational status," said Bartus, who's white. Brider, the Black California resident, objects to the notion that white people face the same level of discrimination as Black people. But while she thinks the aims of DEI are admirable, she also sees the reality as flawed. "I do think there needs to be something that ensures that there is a good cross-section of people in the workplace," Brider said. "I just don't know what that would look like, to be honest." The AP-NORC poll of 1,437 adults was conducted July 10-14, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.
CNBC
26 minutes ago
- CNBC
Should you use home equity to pay for a wedding?
Couples who got married in 2025 spent an average of $36,000 on their wedding, according to Zola, up from $33,000 in 2024 and $29,000 in 2023. While many people save up for the big day, nearly a third (31%) charge their wedding expenses. With credit card interest rates sailing past 21%, the bride and groom (or their parents) might be tempted to find other ways to finance the big day. Home equity loans and home equity lines of credit (HELOCs) have lower rates than cards and allow you to borrow a lot more money. You'll also have a lot more time to pay off the debt. But is it a smart move to tap your home equity for a wedding? We asked the experts. Home equity is the percentage of your home you own outright, versus your outstanding mortgage balance. If you pay for your home in cash, for example, you'll start with 100% home equity. If you put 20% down, you'd have 20% home equity at closing. Your home equity grows as you make mortgage payments, but it can also increase if you make home improvements or property values increase. One of the benefits of home equity is being able to leverage it to take out a home equity loan or HELOC. Because the debt is secured by your house, you can usually get a better rate and terms than other kinds of financing. But that also means your lender could foreclose if you fail to make on-time payments. Experts encourage homeowners to think twice before tying up their home equity to fund their big day. "The most clear downside is that you're putting your home at risk for this one-time event," Jovan Johnson, founder of Atlanta's Piece of Wealth Financial Planning, told CNBC Select. "It can be 20 years, or even more, before you pay off that debt." You're also taking a substantial financial risk at the very start of your life together, Johnson added."Life happens. You have to plan for the worst-case scenarios," he said. "If you have to relocate, or something happens and you have to sell your home, that's equity you lose out on." If you're determined to borrow money to pay for your wedding, Johnson said, "I would always start by asking you to consider less risky options — preferably something without your house being collateral." More than one in ten couples use personal loans to finance their wedding, according to Zola. Because of their intended use, they're often referred to as "wedding loans." Here's how a wedding loan compares to home equity financing: If you opt for a wedding loan, LightStream guarantees it will beat competitors' rates and Upstart accepts applicants with credit scores as low as 300. Both made CNBC Select's list of best lenders for wedding loans. 6.94% - 25.29%* APR with AutoPay Debt consolidation, home improvement, auto financing, medical expenses, and others $5,000 to $100,000 24 to 144 months* dependent on loan purpose Good None None None Terms apply. *AutoPay discount is only available prior to loan funding. Rates without AutoPay are 0.50% points higher. Excellent credit required for lowest rate. Rates vary by loan purpose. 7.8% - 35.99% Debt consolidation, credit card refinancing, wedding, moving or medical $1,000 to $50,000 36 and 60 months Credit score of 300 on at least one credit report (but will accept applicants whose credit history is so insufficient they don't have a credit score) 0% to 12% of the target amount None The greater of 5% of last amount due or $15, whichever is greater Terms apply. If you're approved for a home equity loan or HELOC, you can use the funds for nearly any reason, including paying for a wedding. You'lll get a lower interest rate than with a personal loan or credit cards, and you'll have a single debt rather than numerous credit card bills. But experts advise caution because it requires using your house as collateral and could risk foreclosure. If you're determined to borrow from your home equity to pay for a wedding, a HELOC may make more sense. Interest rates can be lower and you can borrow exactly how much you need, rather than paying for financing you didn't use. You can determine your home equity by subtracting your outstanding mortgage balance from your house's current market value. If your property is worth $500,000 and you have $200,000 on your mortgage, you have 60% equity ($300,000). Reach out to a realtor or appraiser to understand your home's market matters — so make the most of it. Get expert tips, strategies, news and everything else you need to maximize your money, right to your inbox. Sign up here. At CNBC Select, our mission is to provide our readers with high-quality service journalism and comprehensive consumer advice so they can make informed decisions with their money. Every mortgage article is based on rigorous reporting by our team of expert writers and editors with extensive knowledge of mortgage products. While CNBC Select earns a commission from affiliate partners on many offers and links, we create all our content without input from our commercial team or any outside third parties, and we pride ourselves on our journalistic standards and ethics.
Black America Web
an hour ago
- Black America Web
Judge Blocks Trump Administration From Withholding Planned Parenthood Funds
Source: Kevin Hagen / Getty On Monday, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from withholding Medicaid funds intended to go towards Planned Parenthood. According to the New York Times, Federal District Court Judge Indira Talwani's ruling indefinitely extends a temporary block she placed on the federal government earlier this month. Planned Parenthood filed a lawsuit against the federal government after a law included in Trump's Big Beautiful Bill imposed a one-year ban on Medicaid payments to nonprofits that perform abortions and received over $800,000 in federal funding in 2023. Sounds like a strangely specific law? Talwani agreed, with her ruling finding that the law retaliated against Planned Parenthood, violated their First Amendment rights, and could potentially result in unconstitutional 'legislative punishment.' The $800,000 threshold seemed to be the deciding factor, as no other nonprofit reached that level of federal funding. Talwani found it was 'easily ascertainable' that the law was targeted specifically at Planned Parenthood. From the New York Times: Federal law already prohibits the use of federal Medicaid funds for paying for abortions, and Judge Talwani previously found that the provision was designed to indirectly squeeze clinics into dropping such services, using Medicaid payments as leverage. She noted the expansive role that Planned Parenthood's umbrella organization plays in political organizing, saying that the provision could also threaten 'expressive' activity including advocating before Congress, supporting candidates and communicating with voters. In withholding funding from the independent clinics that make up the organization's network, Judge Talwani wrote that the provision effectively held the potential to minimize the organization's footprint across the country. In many states, it could force clinics to vastly reduce services or close. The law targeting Planned Parenthood was only the latest effort by the GOP to hamper women's access to abortion and bodily autonomy. Abortion bans have been implemented in several Republican-led states as a result of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade . So far, Missouri is the only state where an abortion ban has been reversed after voters enshrined abortion into the state constitution last year. Even that hasn't been a straightforward journey, as legal proceedings have resulted in the ban going back and forth between restored and blocked, and state legislators are actively working on new legislation to restore the abortion ban. Considering Missouri has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the country, perhaps they should spend more time focused on improving women's access to healthcare instead of trying to limit it. Unfortunately, Black women have borne the brunt of these anti-abortion measures. In Texas, the abortion ban has increased the deaths of Black mothers by 38%. In 2022, Amber Thurman died a completely preventable death when Georgia doctors refused to treat her in a timely fashion after she faced complications from an abortion pill. Had Talwani allowed the funding to be withheld, these outcomes could've been worsened nationwide, even in states that allow abortion. Beyond providing abortions, Planned Parenthood provides sexual health services, family planning, and testing for sexually transmitted infections. The funding freeze wouldn't have only hurt Planned Parenthood, but also the individual clinics associated with the organization. Talwani wrote the law would require 'each member to disaffiliate with Planned Parenthood Federation and stop providing abortion to continue participating in Medicaid programs,' which effectively 'kneecaps the entire organization.' The Trump administration filed an appeal over Talwani's initial block, but barring any potential movement in that effort, Talwani's ruling will remain in effect indefinitely. So, at least for the time being, Planned Parenthood doesn't have to decide between providing a vital service for millions of women or losing a catastrophic amount of money. What a shame we're under an administration that even put that choice on the table to begin with. SEE ALSO: SCOTUS Medicaid Decision Could Defund Planned Parenthood Missouri Abortion Ban Struck Down By Judge…Again SEE ALSO Judge Blocks Trump Administration From Withholding Planned Parenthood Funds was originally published on
