logo
In SLO County, policies for public records on private devices go from strict to nonexistent

In SLO County, policies for public records on private devices go from strict to nonexistent

Yahoo27-04-2025

Reality Check is a SLO Tribune fact check series that holds those in power to account and dives into the accuracy of statements or claims. Have a tip? Email tips@thetribunenews.com.
How public records are handled on private devices at local governments in San Luis Obispo County ranges from strict rules with detailed expectations to laissez-faire advice that amounts to virtually no policy at all, a Tribune analysis found.
The Tribune investigated the question as it remains locked in a three-party legal battle among the newspaper, the city of Paso Robles and Councilman Chris Bausch over texts and emails Bausch has withheld for more than six months despite 19 Public Records Act requests.
After receiving only a single record in response, The Tribune sued the city and Bausch in March, citing violations of state law. The filing has since triggered a series of cross-complaints from both defendants.
Beyond the courtroom, The Tribune's case — and others like it happening elsewhere in the state and nation — shines a spotlight on an oft-overlooked responsibility of local governments, to determine whether they have policies outlining best practices for documenting public communication on personal devices, and if those practices are, in fact, being followed.
California law is clear on this in a case that was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2017.
The case, City of San Jose v. Superior Court, determined that records relating to public business should be disclosed under the California Public Records Act, even when those records are stored on an official's private device.
This issue is not unique to San Luis Obispo County. The Los Angeles Times filed a lawsuit in March against Mayor Karen Bass for her deleted text messages during Los Angeles' deadly wildfires in January, and in San Francisco, former Mayor London Breed and current Mayor Daniel Lurie have both made headlines for deleting and/or concealing texts about public business, according to the San Francisco Standard.
'In all fairness to Mr. Bausch, he's not the only one doing this, but that doesn't make it right,' The Tribune's attorney Karl Olson said during a March Q&A about The Tribune's lawsuit. 'There's a constitutional right of access to communications dealing with public business.'
Stockton and San Jose have also faced similar issues with private device use among its elected officials.
In the wake of the Paso Robles case, it begs the question: Do local governments in SLO County have policies mandating how public records are preserved on private devices and do they ensure their staff and elected officials are fully informed on how to follow California law?
In Bausch's case, Paso Robles argues the councilman was well-trained in public records policy and was advised not to use his personal phone for public business.
Still, he's found himself embroiled in a courtroom battle that will likely rack up a significant legal bill — one that taxpayers could wind up paying.
As part of its Reality Check series, The Tribune investigated how each city in San Luis Obispo County and the county itself maintains its public records, and what their procedures are to help officials comply with the law and avoid costly legal battles.
What it discovered was that policies vary widely from city to city, with some like the city of San Luis Obispo laying out strict guidelines and others like Pismo Beach having no policy at all.
Paso Robles encourages councilmembers to use their city emails and accounts 'to the greatest extent practicable,' according to its Council Policies and Procedures Handbook.
The city specifically provides councilmembers with direct access to city telephone and computer systems, as well as a cell phone, for officials to conduct city business on city devices and accounts as needed.
But Paso Robles does not appear to have a policy for all city employees in its municipal code or other policy manuals.
According to the city's lawsuit against Bausch, the city provides extensive training on California open government and transparency laws to city councilmembers — including obligations under the Public Records Act — and also routinely reminds councilmembers that they should be using their public accounts and devices for city business.
It is unclear from the policy manual how records made on private devices should be retained or for how long. It also doesn't state a clear procedure on how councilmembers should look for records made on their personal devices or accounts.
Mary Sponhalz, deputy city clerk for Paso Robles, told The Tribune in a December email that when the city receives a request for public records store on a city official's or employee's personal device, the request is forwarded to them with a request to submit items to the city clerk, deputy city clerk or custodian of records for review and release within 10 days.
'Less technologically savvy' employees or officials can also bring their devices to the clerk directly, she said.
'We rely on the individual to disclose if they have or may have responsive records,' she added.
In Atascadero, the city's policy for councilmembers requires them to use city email accounts.
If a councilmember receives an email pertaining to public business on a private account, they're encouraged to forward the email to their city account and/or ask the sender to email their city account, according to the Atascadero City Council Handbook.
The handbook requires councilmembers who want to maintain a public social media presence to meet with city officials to discuss it.
It also encourages councilmembers to 'think carefully' before sending or responding to emails.
'Never reply when angry or in a bad mood,' the handbook states. 'Do not make derogatory personal comments.'
As for other officials, Atascadero fire and police are permitted to use their personal devices on duty only 'in exigent circumstances' or as otherwise authorized, according to the city's police and fire department policies. The policies list using a personal phone when radio communications are unavailable as an acceptable caveat.
Using a personal cell phone for work reduces the expectation of privacy on that device, the policies state. City agencies can examine these devices for records relating to litigation, public records requests, investigations and other circumstances that may arise, according to the city.
The policy also states that public records stored on an employee's personal device should be sent to their work device and deleted from the other by the end of the employee's shift.
In addition to these policies, city spokesperson Terrie Banish told The Tribune that the city reviews and updates its public records policies as needed to comply with the law.
'When a request for records is received, the City requires its staff to examine their personal devices for responsive records, and if there are any, the City requires staff to sign a declaration attesting to the search for such records,' Banish wrote to The Tribune in an email.
The city of San Luis Obispo appears to have the most robust policies in place when it comes to private devices and records retention.
City spokesperson Whitney Szentesi told The Tribune that the city consistently advises its employees and officials of its obligations to search personal devices if they possess records responsive to Public Records Act requests and requires staff to search their private devices and accounts, including text messages and social media, when responding to records requests.
According to the City Council policy manual, the city advises that any communications regarding city business on private accounts or devices, including social media, can be subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act, and are also subject to the Brown Act and the city's records retention regulations.
The city's records retention policy also is very clear on the use of personal email.
'No city employee shall use their personal email account(s) to send emails relating to or containing city business,' it reads. 'If an employee inadvertently transmits an email or receives an email that relates to or contains city business outside of the city email server, that employee shall immediately transmit an unaltered copy of the message(s) to their city email account to be retained.'
The city retains emails for a minimum of two years, the policy said.
The policy also discourages city employees from using texts to conduct official city business. If an employee of elected official does conduct business through text, they are responsible for ensuring the communications are retained and archived, the policy said.
In Morro Bay, officials are encouraged to use city email accounts and devices exclusively, according to the city's policy handbook for City Council and advisory bodies.
'Limited use of a private device for public business is permissible but not encouraged, and public records on such devices are subject to the Public Records Act,' the handbook reads.
If an official receives a communication about public business on their personal device or email, Morro Bay's policy encourages them to either copy or forward any public records created to their city device.
'That practice facilitates efficient and prompt responses to Public Record Act requests,' the handbook reads.
The policy is clear that public records created or stored on a personal device or email account are still subject to public records requests.
Pismo Beach does not have a specific policy regarding the use of private devices by city employees and officials, Pismo Beach Assistant City Manager Mike James told The Tribune.
'The city follows best management practices to ensure all emails and application usage go through the city servers so city records are properly retained,' James added.
Grover Beach also does not have a citywide policy for the use of personal devices, Grover Beach Assistant City Manager Kristin Eriksson said, because only Police Department Staff and Public Works maintenance staff are provided with 'city handheld devices.'
According to the Grover Beach Police Department manual, police employees should not use personal accounts or devices to communicate about the official business of the department. It also states employees do not have a right to privacy when using their department email.
Police Department employees also should only use technology provided by the department while on duty or in conjunction with assignments, which also applies to personally owned devices used to access department resources.
Arroyo Grande also has no standalone written policy regarding the use of private devices by city employees, Arroyo Grande City Clerk Jessica Matson said, but it does have one for its councilmembers.
The City Council Handbook advises that all communications regarding city business to and from councilmembers are potentially subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act regardless of how they are sent, received or stored. It asks councilmembers to 'minimize potential risk, embarrassment or awkward situations' and to conduct all city business on city devices and accounts to the greatest extent possible to ensure the city has a record of the communications.
It also advises members to use 'tact and caution' when communicating in writing about the city's business regardless of the medium or recipient, adding that exceptions for disclosure of communications about the city's business are narrow.
'As always, a good rule of thumb before hitting 'send' is to consider how you would feel if the communication were to be reprinted in the newspaper,' the handbook said.
Matson added that the city clerk's office ensures all appropriate measures are taken to verify that city records are collected from all devices, including personal devices, in response to Public Records Act requests and ensures all city employees and officials are aware of their obligations to search their personal devices if they possess records responsive to records requests.
For San Luis Obispo County, employees are not prohibited from using their personal devices for public duties, according to county spokesperson Jeanette Trompeter. However, officials are encouraged to use government devices.
According to Trompeter, restrictions are in place that prevent county documents from being downloaded or distributed on personal devices.
But the policy Trompeter sent to The Tribune mostly outlined rules around personal cell phone use and stipends, rather than guidelines for records retention.
Trompeter said the county regularly advises board members about their obligations under the Public Records Act, including for records stored on personal devices. County counsel has discouraged board members from using personal devices for public business, she said.
'Employees are responsible for ensuring proper retention and disclosure of documents on personal devices,' Trompeter wrote in an email to The Tribune.
Paso Robles isn't the only city in hot water over potential public records concerns.
Recently, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass came under fire for having her texts set to auto-delete, preventing reporters from learning about her communications in the aftermath of the fires that devastated the region, the Los Angeles Times reported.
The Times then launched a lawsuit against the city over the deleted texts, it reported in late March.
A city councilman in Spokane Valley, Washington, is also facing similar challenges to Bausch after he refused to turn over records relating to his social media use, the Inlander reported. The Spokane Valley City Council voted in February to allow the city manager to take legal action against the councilman, according to the article.
These instances, as well as the case in Paso Robles, should inspire local cities to evaluate their own public records policies, said Karl Olson, an attorney for The Tribune.
Olson helped litigate the landmark San Jose case that officially established that public records stored on private devices are subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act.
Olson said every city should have a written policy that clearly outlines public records law, including the precedent set forth in the San Jose case.
Olson added policies 'encouraging' officials to use or copy their government phones are different than policies 'requiring' them to — which the San Jose case determined cities can do, Olson said.
'I would definitely encourage cities to follow guidance from the California Supreme Court,' he said. 'I mean, if they don't do that, they're asking for the same kind of problems that have occurred in Paso Robles.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Wake up, Floridians: Our politicians don't respect or represent us
Wake up, Floridians: Our politicians don't respect or represent us

Yahoo

time6 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Wake up, Floridians: Our politicians don't respect or represent us

Are the older folks of Florida just going to sit back while protecting their wallets? The nation is facing an economic and social crisis. Our elected officials at all levels are hiding out, potentially allowing the most vulnerable citizens to lose vital services and assistance. Our leaders are so out of touch with the average Americans' needs, instead moving toward assisting the wealthy to get wealthier. I'll leave the social issues for another letter. Wake up, Floridians, you're being taken for a sad ride while potentially sucking the fumes of the Big 'Bad' Bill. Think of the impact on your grandchildren – or maybe you don't care! Robert Richard, Sarasota This article originally appeared on Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Wake up, Floridians: Our politicians do more harm than good | Letters

Carbondale to consider referendum for home rule charter update
Carbondale to consider referendum for home rule charter update

Yahoo

time18 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Carbondale to consider referendum for home rule charter update

Carbondale residents could have the opportunity to vote in November on a referendum modernizing personnel policies in the city's home rule charter. Carbondale City Council will consider adopting an ordinance during its June 16 meeting to add a referendum question to the Nov. 4 ballot addressing the personnel section of the city's home rule charter, according to Mayor Michele Bannon and a public notice published Friday in The Times-Tribune. If approved, the referendum will ask city voters whether to amend Article IX of Carbondale's home rule charter concerning its municipal personnel system, according to the notice. The charter is the city's governing document. The potential referendum comes as city officials are working to update their legislation, namely Carbondale's 1974 home rule charter, Bannon said. 'Government always needs to be transparent,' Bannon said. 'We always need to be responsive, and we need to be aligned with the evolving needs of our community.' Enacted in 1972, Pennsylvania's Home Rule Law increased local autonomy, according to the state Department of Community and Economic Development. Home rule charters transfer the basic authority to act in municipal affairs from state law to a local charter that is adopted and amended by voters, according to the DCED. The goal in Carbondale is to modernize its charter, clarify outdated language and 'ultimately enhance our operational efficiency within municipal government,' Bannon said. Elements of Carbondale's home rule charter don't reconcile with each other, Bannon said, which prompted her to speak with city council, their solicitor and members of the public. 'It's obviously clear that we need to make some changes in the charter, so we figured we'd start with personnel, simply because that's the heart and soul of who we are,' she said. 'The city of Carbondale provides service to our residents, so we want to make sure everything is lined up there and … that our staff gives our residents the best service they possibly can.' Councilman Dominick Famularo, who introduced the ordinance, echoed Bannon. 'The language of our charter is 50 years old, and there are many spots throughout the charter where either the understanding of the passage has changed or the language seemed inappropriate,' Famularo said. Carbondale last amended its home rule charter in 2004 when residents approved a referendum allowing the mayor to fill the position of managing director if he or she met the qualifications. Amending the home rule charter has to be done by referendum, Bannon said. According to the draft ordinance, there would be amendments to three items under the personnel section. First, appointments and promotions of subordinate officers and employees within departments shall be made by the mayor/managing director, not the department head. That conflicts with other parts of the charter, and the mayor/managing director already handles appointments and promotions, Bannon said. Second, any employee who files a petition for election of office would have to obtain a positive opinion from the State Ethics Commission and any other relevant agency. Currently, the charter stipulates that no city employee shall serve as an officer of a political party; any city employee who files a petition for election to a partisan political office and does not withdraw shall be required to take a leave of absence for the duration of the campaign. If not elected, the employee shall promptly be restored to the previously held position without losing any rights, according to the current charter language. While campaigning for mayor in 2023, Bannon had to take a leave of absence from her longtime position as city clerk. That became an issue for the city, Famularo said. 'She had to leave her position for several months during the campaign, and of course what happens then is we have a gap in leadership in the city,' he said. 'I really don't think that was anyone's intention when they wrote the charter.' Third, the amendment would remove 'cumbersome language' regarding civil service, Bannon said. According to the proposal, the home rule charter would only say, 'All full-time police and fire employees of the city shall be covered by civil service,' deleting a line saying, 'with the exception of the managing director, the city solicitor, department heads and the city clerk.' City council will meet June 16 at 6:30 p.m. at City Hall, 1 N. Main St.

Judge denies Michael Madigan's motion for new trial, setting stage for high-stakes sentencing Friday
Judge denies Michael Madigan's motion for new trial, setting stage for high-stakes sentencing Friday

Yahoo

time21 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Judge denies Michael Madigan's motion for new trial, setting stage for high-stakes sentencing Friday

A federal judge on Monday denied a motion by former House Speaker Michael Madigan seeking to overturn his recent conviction on bribery and other corruption counts, setting the stage for a high-stakes sentencing hearing later this week. Madigan, 83, was back in the federal courtroom for the first time since a jury convicted him nearly four months ago. But unlike his marathon trial, Monday's hearing was brief. After both sides waived oral arguments on the defense motion, U.S. District Judge John Robert Blakey announced he was denying it, though his ruling, which he said is more than 100 pages long, won't be made public for some time. Madigan sat through the 15-minute hearing without comment and walked out carrying an umbrella. Blakey is holding another hearing Tuesday to go over issues on the sentencing guidelines in Madigan's case, which hinge partly on how much money ComEd stood to gain because of legislation the speaker helped usher through the legislative process. Madigan's attorneys are also asking Blakey to strike language from a prosecution filing last Friday revealing for the first time publicly that Madigan 'has amassed a personal fortune of more than $40 million' — a disclosure reported by the Tribune over the weekend. The defense wrote in a motion filed ahead of Monday's hearing that Madigan served the public as a legislator and lawyer for more than 60 years and 'chose frugality over extravagance, remaining in the same modest home for more than fifty years while making prudent savings and investment choices.' 'The government offers zero evidence—absolutely nothing—to justify broadcasting specific details about his net worth,' the motion stated. 'The government's decision to splash his personal financial information across a public filing represents a gross breach of the rules.' Blakey said he'd take up the issue on Tuesday. Madigan's sentencing, set for Friday afternoon, is one of the most highly anticipated hearings in years at the Dirksen U.S. Courthouse. Prosecutors have asked for a hefty 12 1/2 year prison term and $1.5 million fine, while the defense is seeking probation along with a period of home confinement. Madigan's defense team filed a motion in March arguing for a new trial in his corruption case, saying prosecutors failed to prove the then-powerful Democrat knew about a scheme by ComEd to pay off his associates and alleging Blakey made a series of mistakes in his evidentiary rulings. The 73-page motion alleged those errors tainted the jury with highly prejudicial evidence, and asked Blakey to reverse the jury's verdict on certain guilty counts and grant a new trial on others. Among the missteps that Madigan's legal team says warrants a new trial: letting in a now-infamous FBI wiretap where Madigan tells his longtime confidant, Michael McClain, that some ComEd contractors 'made out like bandits' for little work; allowing the jury to hear prejudicial testimony about sexual harassment allegations; and including a recorded phone call between McClain and the speaker's son, Andrew Madigan, about another public utility, Peoples Gas, being forced to make political hires. The defense filing also argued that despite the jury's guilty verdict, prosecutors failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Madigan knew about any scheme to enrich his friends or that there was a 'this-for-that' agreement to help shepherd ComEd's legislation in Springfield. 'Michael Madigan is not corrupt. He never exchanged his duty to serve his constituents for private benefit — the essence of corruption,' the filing stated. 'For decades, Madigan sought to ensure ComEd did not get away with ripping off consumers in Illinois. Madigan's primary purpose was to work hard for his community and the Democratic party.' Such post-trial motions are routine and rarely granted. But the filing provides a blueprint for a likely appeal to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Madigan's trial capped one of the most significant political corruption investigations in Chicago's checkered history. It also cemented an extraordinary personal fall for Madigan, the longest-serving state legislative leader in the nation's history who for decades held an iron-tight grip on the House as well as the state Democratic Party. After 11 days of deliberation, the jury's final verdict was mixed. Madigan was convicted of 10 of 23 counts, including marquee allegations that he agreed to squeeze lucrative, do-nothing contracts from ComEd for pals such as former Alds. Frank Olivo and Michael Zalewski and precinct captains Ray Nice and Edward Moody, all while the utility won a series of major legislation victories. Madigan was also convicted on six out of seven counts — including wire fraud and Travel Act violations — regarding a plan to get ex-Ald. Daniel Solis, a key FBI mole who testified at length in the trial, appointed to a state board. Jurors deadlocked on all six counts related to Madigan's co-defendant McClain. jmeisner@

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store