Cleveland City Council votes to censure Councilman Joseph T. Jones over workplace conduct

Cleveland City Council voted to censure Councilman Joseph T. Jones on Monday, Sept. 8, 2025, after an outside investigation found incidents that the council said likely violated its workplace violence policy and standards-of-conduct policy.

Council President Mark Griffin read the censure resolution in full before members debated and voted. The resolution says Jones threatened a staff person three times during a May 19 interaction and sat beside a staff member he had been directed not to contact, conduct the council said likely violated its policies and “created a hostile work environment.” The council adopted the censure by a recorded tally of 14 yeas and 2 nays.

The censure matters because the council framed the vote as enforcement of rules intended to protect staff safety and workplace integrity. “This vote is not about personal animosity or political difference. It is about accountability,” Council President Mark Griffin said while introducing the resolution. The motion notes prior discipline last year after an outside investigation deemed six complaints against Jones credible and describes progressive-discipline steps the council previously took.

According to the materials read into the record, the council required Jones to complete group workplace behavior and leadership accountability training and a series of individual trainings, issued a written reprimand in July 2024, temporarily removed him from committee assignments and updated policies in February 2025. Griffin said those steps and clear written warnings did not stop further incidents and that the censure was the next step under the rules the body adopted in early 2022.

Councilman Richard Star spoke against the censure before the recorded vote, saying he opposed what he described as a punitive approach and warning that staff reluctance to act can hamper city business. “Should anyone repeatedly seek satisfaction through punitive measures? … The proposal for censure strikes me as more punitive than substantive,” Star said.

Councilman Joseph T. Jones addressed the chamber before the vote and said he regretted an “ill-phrased” joking remark but denied any criminal intent, noting an independent witness had initially said the remark did not appear threatening. Jones said the second allegation — that he sat near a staff member with whom he had no-contact instructions — was inadvertent and visible on video. He urged the council to ensure due process, legal representation and impartial review for members facing discipline.

The resolution text and the council’s remarks state the action responds to staff concerns that the incidents left employees “anxious, stressed and concerned about their safety.” The resolution classified itself as an emergency measure for the “immediate preservation of public peace, property, health, or safety.”

Discussion vs. decision: council members were permitted two minutes to comment during the period set aside for debate; Jones was afforded four minutes for his remarks. After debate the clerk called a recorded roll and the censure passed 14–2. The council did not attach additional penalties beyond the public censure in the text adopted at the meeting.

What the council said about process: officials said they retained an external law firm to investigate last year’s complaints and that the firm found the allegations credible. Council leadership described the action as the culmination of a progressive-discipline process that included written reprimands, mandated trainings and temporary removal from committee work. Council staff and leadership also said all 17 members acknowledged receipt of updated harassment and workplace-violence policies adopted in February 2025.

What remains unresolved: the censure is a formal condemnation recorded in council minutes; the resolution does not create or assign a follow-up investigatory body or additional sanctions in the text adopted on the floor. Members who voted against the measure said concerns about due process and precedent influenced their votes. Member remarks in opposition urged attention to service delivery priorities and warned against repeated punitive measures without safeguards. The council did not vote to alter Jones’s committee assignments or compensation during the meeting.

Ending: With the censure adopted, council members said they would move on to their regular agenda. Council President Griffin urged members to consider the safety of staff and the credibility of the institution when enforcing workplace rules. Jones said he would continue representing his ward and called for procedural safeguards for members under review.