When a public body disciplines one of its own for workplace misconduct, two imperatives collide: protecting staff and the public from harm and protecting the democratic legitimacy of elected office through due process. Cleveland City Council’s September 2025 censure of Councilman J.J., after findings he engaged in bullying and harassment, including an alleged death threat to a city employee, puts that tension in sharp relief. It’s an instructive case for any municipal leader, HR professional, or integrity office navigating the boundary between necessary discipline and allegations of overreach.

1. The Case Snapshot: What Happened in Cleveland

On September 15, 2025, Cleveland City Council voted to censure Councilman J.J. for misconduct and unprofessional behavior.  The action followed an outside investigation and centered on two May 19 incidents: (1) J.J. allegedly told a staffer, “I’ll f***ing kill you” three times; and (2) he later sat next to a staff member he had been directed to avoid due to prior incidents. J.J. called the “kill” remark a joke without malicious intent, while his attorney later characterized the comment as a workplace-inappropriate quip about computer passwords. The staffer reported the threat to the FBI, and council leaders said video corroborated the seating incident. The censure passed overwhelmingly, and it was the first in nearly 50 years.

J.J.’s discipline did not occur in a vacuum. Earlier, a council-released summary of an independent review concluded he had likely violated sexual and non‑sexual harassment policies over multiple years, prompting warnings and training requirements. Council leaders stated he had been told that further misconduct could trigger public censure; after the new incidents, they moved forward. J.J. addressed the chamber before the vote, apologized, and said he would undergo additional training; nevertheless, council adopted the censure resolution.

2. The Pushback: “Opaque,” “Anti‑Democratic,” and “Unlawful”

Days before the vote, J.J.’s attorney sent a nine‑page letter asserting the process suffered from “opaque” methods, conclusory statements, and bias, and that penalties already imposed were “unlawful, anti‑democratic, [and] violative of Council Rules.” He demanded access to the full outside investigation and related correspondence; council’s attorneys countered that J.J. was not entitled to the full report. The debate extended to consistency and selective enforcement: one colleague argued there had been prior incidents involving other members without censure, framing the action as uneven accountability.

3. The Balancing Act: Proportionality, Due Process, and Institutional Integrity

• ‍Proportionality. Threatening language, joking or not, can qualify as workplace violence under many policies and regulations, triggering protective measures and sanctions. Here, council relied on an independent investigation, prior warnings, and a pattern of concerns to calibrate its response. The no contact directive, committee suspensions, and training are classic progressive discipline steps for safety and risk management, especially after prior findings and advisories.‍
• Due process. For elected officials, the process must respect notice, an opportunity to respond, and evidence-based decision making. In Cleveland, J.J. spoke publicly before the vote, had counsel advancing procedural objections, and the council referenced investigatory findings and documented warnings in its resolution. ‍
• Institutional integrity. Council leaders framed the censure as safeguarding workplace dignity and public trust, emphasizing that in any other workplace, similar conduct could warrant termination, though elected officials cannot be “fired” in the same way. The rarity of censure (first in approximately 50 years) underscores its symbolic gravity and heightens the onus on council to demonstrate fairness and consistency going forward.

4. What Cleveland Got Right, and What Remains Contested

What went right:

• Independent fact finding by outside counsel to avoid conflicts and bolster credibility.
• Documented escalation from prior warnings/training to censure after new incidents.
• Protective measures tailored to safety (no contact, committee removals, training).
• Each of these aligns with recognized risk management and workplace safety norms when threats and harassment are alleged.

What remains contested:

• Transparency vs. confidentiality: Denying the subject access to the full report may protect witnesses but can undermine perceptions of due process.
• Consistency: Allegations that other members’ misconduct escaped censure invite claims of selective discipline, which can erode legitimacy unless council codifies clear thresholds and applies them uniformly.
• Political optics: When discipline coincides with elections or internal factions, leaders may need to over communicate the procedural rigor to counter “anti democratic” narratives.

5. The Takeaway

Cleveland’s case underscores that strong discipline and strong due process are not mutually exclusive; they are co-requirements for trustworthy governance. The council advanced workplace safety and institutional norms with an outside investigation, documented warnings, and proportionate controls, yet it also encountered predictable friction around transparency and consistency, especially given the gravity of censuring an elected official.

The lesson for public-sector leaders is to engineer the balance upfront: write rules that trigger independent reviews, commit to progressive and documented discipline, and publish clear, comprehensible summaries that respect privacy while showing your work. That’s how to rebut charges of being “unlawful” or “anti democratic”, not by shrinking from decisive action, but by making the fairness of that action visible.