What Happened After the October 21 Council Meeting
I am writing to document a serious breach of conduct by Councilmember David Atton after Tuesday night’s council meeting. He approached me aggressively, got within inches of my face, and verbally assaulted me in front of multiple witnesses. I considered David a friend and tried repeatedly to help him navigate a difficult political situation. Those efforts were rejected, and the situation escalated to his aggressive behavior that I believe voters and my fellow council members need to know about.
This is a chronological account of what happened.
Note for Readers: This account references the First Amendment and Ohio Sunshine Law. If you’re unfamiliar with how these apply to local government, I’ve prepared brief explanations:
Early October: The Track Record Letter
In early October, fourteen current and former village officials sent a letter to Gates Mills residents called “The David Atton Track Record” that was highly critical of David’s performance on council.
When I learned about the letter and that David was upset about it, I offered support - not regarding the content of the letter - but regarding the way in which he chose to respond.
I had recently launched this community forum specifically designed for transparent public debate about village issues. I believed this was exactly the kind of situation the forum was built for: a platform where David could respond publicly if he chose to, present his perspective, and engage with residents openly.
David chose to respond to the attack letter with what would become a mailed rebuttal. I offered to help David (and any member of council) learn and use the forum as a platform and explained that transparent public debate was better than private emails, private texts, and mailed rebuttals. The forum would give him a direct channel to residents:
David, I am asking you again to use the forum. From your own rebuttal letter:
"The sponsors of the letter are demonstrating their desire to revert to their ‘Old School’ leadership style where decisions were made behind closed doors by a select few. Our Village deserves far better.”
That’s exactly why I’m asking you to have this conversation in public. I am once again receiving emails to all of my accounts from many people operating out of the public eye. That is the very definition of shadow government.
Create a topic on the forum and put all of the information there. Practice the transparency you’re advocating for. I can help you if there is anything technologically confusing about the forum.
David’s response:
John,
No.
David
The 1 mph Claim
At almost exactly the time that David’s letter was about to be mailed to residents, I was creating a search engine for the council meeting minutes. David had been so adamant that he had never “advocated issuing tickets at 1 mile over the speed limit” that my first test search was “one mph”. The first result was January 11, 2022 meeting minutes (page 4, paragraph 2, sentences 1-3) 
:
“Council discussed the Tier One miles per hour over the speed limit amount. The Ordinance states 10-19 mph over the speed limit. Councilmember Atton asked for 1-19 mph.”
I had just built a tool where information that would require reading through years of meeting minutes was now searchable in seconds and my first test proved David’s rebuttal to be incorrect.
I drafted a heartfelt email telling David that he should not send his letter but never sent it to him. I didn’t want to use information from a tool that wasn’t yet publicly available to take sides in a political dispute, even privately. If David wanted to make this counterclaim despite what I’d found, that was his choice.
He sent his rebuttal letter with the false claim:
I did not advocate delaying the program or issuing tickets at “1 mph over the limit”.
Governmental Misuse
On October 16, 2025, David sent an email to the Mayor, copying every member of council to their private email addresses. He demanded that the Village address his political grievances at an official council meeting.
His email stated:
“How do you intend to address this matter at the October 21 Council meeting?”
David wanted the Village Council to use its official meeting to publicly discuss the letter sent by residents: to debate its contents, its propriety, and whether it was appropriate for village officials to criticize him during an election. In other words, he wanted to turn government proceedings into a forum for addressing his political campaign dispute.
This was inappropriate for multiple reasons:
- It’s not a government matter. Fourteen residents expressed their political opinions about a council member’s record. That’s protected speech, not village business.
- It violates the First Amendment. Council cannot use official proceedings to suppress or adjudicate political criticism.
- It’s a Sunshine Law violation. By emailing all of council about this matter, David created a situation where a majority of council was discussing village business outside of a public meeting.
I responded on October 19, explaining why this was wrong:
David and Steve,
I need to respectfully but firmly disagree with the premise of this email.
David, what you’re describing is political speech during an election campaign. Fourteen residents expressed their views about your council record. Some are currently serving, most are formerly serving. That’s not a Village government matter. That’s democracy. Bringing this to a Council meeting would be:
- Using official government proceedings to adjudicate a political campaign dispute
- Exactly the kind of behind-closed-doors decision-making you’ve criticized (what happens in executive session stays private)
- Setting a dangerous precedent that any council member facing political criticism can demand official Village intervention
Also, this is a potential Sunshine Law violation since you’ve now involved a majority (all) of council in private email communications about Village business and the Mayor responded.
Steve, I don’t envy your position here, but I believe the only appropriate response is to decline involvement. This is a political matter, not a governmental one.
David, you have multiple remedies available:
- Continue your public response (which you’ve done)
- Use the new forum for transparent public debate (which I’ve repeatedly offered to help with) - there are people on it!
- Pursue legal action if you believe the letter contained defamatory falsehoods
- Campaign on your actual record
What you cannot do, what we as a Council cannot do, is use official Village proceedings to settle political scores or suppress political speech we don’t like.
I say this as your friend and colleague: turning this into a governmental issue is the wrong strategy, and it undermines the very transparency you claim to champion.
Respectfully,
John Onysko
The Council Meeting (October 21)
The October 21 council meeting began with the Mayor making clear that political campaign matters would not be discussed. He set this boundary explicitly at the start of the meeting.
Near the end of the meeting, during public comments, someone brought up the attack letter - exactly the political matter the Mayor had said would not be discussed. It became clear the conversation was heading toward candidate matters, not council business. David used the opportunity to start a political discussion, so I activated my microphone, interrupting David and indicating that this was not the correct venue for this.
Had this illegal discussion that David had been warned multiple times about been allowed to continue, I would have left the meeting so as not to be part of it. The Mayor also correctly interjected, and Laurie Deacon immediately moved to adjourn the meeting as the agenda had been completed and the discussion was veering into inappropriate territory.
David voted against adjourning. He wanted to continue despite the Mayor’s clear boundary and the completion of official business. The motion to adjourn passed. The meeting ended.
David was visibly angry.
After the meeting
The cameras shut off. I thought the temperature would come down. I was wrong.
David got up from his seat, walked over to me, got within inches of my face, and pointed his finger one inch from my nose.
“FUCK YOU,” he yelled.
I attempted to respond: “David, this is not the right forum…”
He interrupted me, screaming: “Oh yeah, where is the right place? Your forum? Fuck you and fuck your forum!” I thought he was going to take a swing at me. He seemed to consider it. Then he stormed off.
The Chief of Police was kind enough to escort a group of us out through the back entrance because David and his wife were blocking the front exit.
I am 55 years old. I cannot remember being accosted like this since an incident in boot camp. It was unprofessional, misplaced, inappropriate, and unbefitting a council member.
The Pattern
This wasn’t an isolated incident. It was the culmination of a pattern.
-
David complained about “shadow government” and “decisions made behind closed doors” while at the same time refusing to use a public forum designed for transparent debate.
-
David demanded transparency from others while he himself insisted on operating through private emails and coordination.
-
David accused others of “Old School leadership” while trying to misuse government proceedings for personal political purposes.
-
David claimed to champion openness while violating Sunshine Law by coordinating with other council members outside public meetings.
And when I enforced the very boundaries that protect transparent government, David responded with physical intimidation and verbal assault.
The irony is profound: I built the forum specifically for the kind of transparent public debate David claims to want. I offered repeatedly to help him use it. Instead, he attacked me - and attacked the forum itself - for maintaining appropriate boundaries between political speech and government proceedings.
This is:
- someone who demands transparency from everyone else but refuses to practice it himself
- someone who claims to want open government but tries to misuse official proceedings for political gain
- someone who responds to being told “no” with physical intimidation
Conclusion
This behavior is disqualifying. A council member who:
- Misuses government proceedings for political purposes
- Violates the Sunshine Law
- Intimidates another council member for enforcing proper boundaries
- Cannot control himself when told “no”
…cannot effectively serve the residents of Gates Mills.
David Atton should resign.
If David wins re-election and refuses to resign, I will fulfill my duties to Gates Mills to the best of my ability, but I will not pretend this behavior is acceptable or normalize it for future council members.
This is not about policy disagreements or political differences. This is about basic standards of conduct and the ability to govern responsibly.
I considered David a friend. I tried repeatedly to help him. That support was misplaced. What happened after the October 21 council meeting was unacceptable, and residents need to know about it.
All documentation referenced in this account is available in the Atton Documentation Gallery.
Afterword
I was unsure if David would send an apology via some channel. He did indeed send me an e-mail; a “look what you made me do” email that blamed me for his loss of self control.
In the email David quotes Clarence Darrow about ‘banging on the table’ when you lack facts or law. It’s an apt description of his own behavior - both during the meeting and after.
David claims to have ‘full due respect to the First Amendment’ - yet his entire complaint was that I prevented him from using government power to address political criticism. That’s not respecting the First Amendment. That’s fundamentally misunderstanding it.
David’s email blames his loss of control on me. This is exactly the problem. David cannot accept that:
- Council meetings have rules about appropriate topics
- Those rules apply to him
- Being told “no” is part of serving in a democratic government
- Disagreeing with someone during a public meeting does not justify screaming profanities at them afterward
David writes that he hopes I “understand why I swore at you, privately, after the meeting ended.”
I don’t understand it, and it wasn’t private. Multiple witnesses observed his behavior. David’s attempt to minimize what happened - reducing it to “swearing” - is dishonest.
He had 81 years to learn how to handle disagreement without resorting to aggressive confrontation. That he hasn’t learned this disqualifies him from public service.
I have blocked David Atton on all personal communication channels. Any future contact must be through official village channels only. David, do not call me, do not email me personally, and do not text me. All future communications will be through proper governmental channels or not at all.