Before this week’s Cleveland City Council vote to censure Joe Jones for his workplace behavior, the Ward 1 council member’s attorney protested the process in a letter to council leaders. 

The investigation into Jones’ behavior was “opaque” and biased against him, attorney Samuel O’Leary wrote on Sept. 12 to Council President Blaine Griffin and Clerk Patricia Britt. 

By banning Jones from sitting at the council table at committee meetings, leadership deprived Jones of his rights as a council member, O’Leary wrote. 

Council censured Jones on Monday night after investigating an employee’s complaint in May that Jones had threatened to kill him. Another employee reported that Jones sat next to her during a council meeting despite instructions not to have contact with her. 

Jones has said that his words to the first employee were meant as a joke. He has also said that he had picked a seat without realizing whom he was sitting next to. O’Leary reiterated those arguments in the letter.

“While Councilman Jones shares the goal and is committed to achieving a work environment that is free from intimidation, bullying, and harassment, there are nevertheless, numerous and serious factual, procedural, and legal failings of Council’s investigation,” the letter reads. 

O’Leary, who works for the law firm Thrasher, Dinsmore & Dolan, told Signal Cleveland that Jones was willing to undergo additional workplace training.

Read: City Council’s letter to Joe Jones | Jones’ response

The Ward 1 incumbent referenced his attorney’s letter in a 10-minute speech defending himself on the floor of council Monday night. Jones said that he hadn’t received due process in the investigation and that his ward was being punished, too. 

Griffin, in his own remarks at Monday’s council meeting, said that he had followed a deliberate process of step-by-step discipline. Council members and staff were required to take anti-harassment training, and Griffin rolled out a new disciplinary procedure. 

The investigation began last year and looked into earlier complaints that Jones mistreated staff and an artist working in his ward. Then the two employees filed their complaints in May.  

“We have a responsibility to show support for and belief in the people who have made complaints against Councilman Jones,” Griffin said. “For more than a year, Clerk Britt and I have exercised what is known as progressive discipline in our efforts to address the repeated inappropriate behavior of Councilman Jones.” 

Jones asks for documents and criticizes the investigation

O’Leary requested emails and text messages about the probe among council members, staff and McDonald Hopkins, the law firm that investigated Jones. He requested communications between the two employees who reported Jones. He asked for any complaints about the job performance of one of the employees. He also requested all drafts of the report on Jones. 

He wrote that council’s lawyers or the Cleveland Law Department should have represented Jones during the investigation. If a legal conflict existed, they should have advised him to seek out other attorneys, he argued. 

The censure vote was “tainted by secret deliberations” because Griffin asked his colleagues to share their thoughts with him instead of doing so in a public meeting, O’Leary wrote. 

City Council’s response

In written answers to questions from Signal Cleveland, council’s attorneys defended the investigation as fair and objective. 

By soliciting feedback from other council members, Griffin did not hold secret meetings, they wrote. The Law Department did advise Jones to seek outside legal representation, the email continued. (The city’s press office has not yet returned a request for comment.)

“We have not yet had the opportunity to carefully review the letter, which is from Jones’ third attorney with respect to the harassment and workplace violence investigations,” City Council’s statement read. “We can say that the attorney makes many spurious and incorrect allegations not based on evidence or fact.”

What is Jones’ account of the two complaints? 

In May, a council employee wrote to Griffin, Britt and others that Jones had told him “I’ll f—ing kill you” three times. The employee wanted to take the comment as a “sick joke,” but decided to report it after previous complaints about Jones were brought to his attention, he wrote. 

O’Leary denied that Jones repeated his words or used profanity. He wrote that Jones had only joked that, if the employee gave out his computer password, he would kill him. “If you ____, I’ll kill you” is a common phrase generally understood not to be serious, he wrote.

Jones acknowledged that the remark was “inappropriate for the work setting,” O’Leary wrote. “However, under no circumstances could the comment be considered a serious, credible, or real threat.”

Jones has previously said that his wording was, “I’ll blow you up on your motorcycle.”

O’Leary raised the question of whether another employee had encouraged the first one to come forward with the complaint. He also contested the conclusion by council’s investigator that Jones’ witness, a student in the office, was not credible. 

As for the employee whom Jones sat next to, O’Leary wrote that the council member briefly took the seat to hear a presentation and didn’t speak to her. The employee had previously submitted a complaint about Jones, and the council member was not supposed to have contact with her. 

What did council’s investigation say?

Council’s investigation — summarized in a letter from Griffin and Britt — found both employees to be credible and supported by two anonymous complaints. Jones’ actions likely amounted to making threatening remarks, bullying, intimidating and harassing staff in violation of council policies, the probe found. 

In “explicitly referencing death or serious bodily harm,” Jones’ comment was a threatening remark that likely broke council’s workplace violence policy and standards of conduct, the investigation concluded. 

Council’s review found that it was a mitigating factor that Jones did not realize he had sat next to an employee who had complained about it. Nevertheless, the episode still showed “a complete disregard for the disciplinary actions taken after the first investigation,” Griffin and Britt’s letter said. 

Read the letter below.