Latest news with #Bausch
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Paso Robles councilman turns over 5,000 public records after court order
Councilmember Chris Bausch has turned over more than 5,000 emails and text messages to the city of Paso Robles, fulfilling a court order issued amid The Tribune's public records lawsuit against both parties. The next step is for the city to review the documents and determine if anything should be withheld from its perspective, before releasing the bulk to The Tribune. The Tribune filed its lawsuit after multiple requests for public records stored on Bausch's personal devices went unfulfilled — and after city attorney Elizabeth Hull told The Tribune in February that the councilman had 'explicitly refused' to follow public records law without a court order. But now, after the order was issued by Judge Michael Kelley on May 9, Bausch appears to have turned over the sum of his responsive public records to the city. Robert Egger, the attorney representing the city, confirmed during a court hearing Thursday that Bausch produced documents on May 16 — the day after the court's official deadline. The delay was caused by technological issues related to the file sizes, Egger said. The Tribune has yet to see any of Bausch's records — but it should soon. Kelley ordered the city to deliver an initial production of documents by June 6, with the remainder to be delivered by June 16. Egger's statements during court were consistent with comments provided by Bausch during Tuesday night's Paso Robles City Council meeting, where he delineated exactly how many records were turned over. 'I think everybody will be pleased to know that I have finally delivered all relevant and nonprivileged documents requested ... aka the PRA requests as submitted by the SLO Tribune and all others,' Bausch began. 'When all was said and done, I have reviewed nearly 60,000 emails, many of them multiple times due to the redundancy of the SLO Tribune's searches,' he continued. 'I have labeled the responsive documents according to their respective PRA requests, again, often irrespective of the redundancy of the request. I have submitted over 2,000 emails that, when combined, clocked in at over 1.5 gigabytes.' Bausch added that when he attempted to upload the documents to the city server, the system requested that he compress the files. He began that process on May 15, the court's deadline, but did not finish the process until May 16, he said. 'As to the text messages, I reviewed over 26,863 text messages, extracting 3,763 responsive conversations that, when printed out, take up 743 pages,' Bausch reported. 'All of these have been submitted to BBK for their review.' BBK is Best Best & Krieger, the city's law firm. According to Egger, Bausch's text messages were delivered to the city in PDF format, which could make the process of reviewing and redacting them more complicated. Egger also added during court that some of the email files were duplicates. After extracting those, the city was left with around 1,000 nonduplicative emails, he said. It was unclear from Bausch's comments during City Council whether or not he withheld any documents due to privilege exemptions that he determined himself — a point Egger also brought up during court. If Bausch did make his own privilege determinations, Kelley said he would be required to provide a privilege log — a document that typically outlines what records were withheld and what exemptions they fell under. Kelley also asked Bausch to file a signed declaration attesting to the thoroughness of his search to the court by May 30. The declaration should affirm that Bausch turned over all responsive and nonprivileged documents, Kelley said. Bausch was represented Thursday by his new attorney, Craig Robson. The councilman had previously been representing himself in the case after the city elected not to do so. Robson said during court that he believed the city should have been representing Bausch 'from day one.' Robson was amenable to the court's requests that Bausch submit a declaration as well as a privilege log if the situation requires. The next court hearing in The Tribune's case was set for June 27.
Yahoo
27-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
In SLO County, policies for public records on private devices go from strict to nonexistent
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@ 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.'
Yahoo
20-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Paso Robles councilman files cross-complaint against Tribune, city in records case
Paso Robles City Councilmember Chris Bausch filed a cross-complaint against The Tribune and the city of Paso Robles, alleging that The Tribune's public records act requests — which are at the center of an ongoing legal battle between The Tribune, Paso Robles and Bausch — were 'vexatious and deceptive.' He then claimed the city's refusal to provide him with legal representation has resulted in his inability to find a lawyer, which he described as an 'undue hardship.' In another document, Bausch requested that the lawsuit be dismissed and, if it is not dismissed, he requested 60 additional days to find legal counsel. The cross-complaint was filed alongside his formal response to the Tribune's lawsuit and his case management conference statement, which he submitted Friday ahead of The Tribune's next hearing date on April 30. The cross-complaint 'completely lacks merit,' according to the Tribune's attorney, Karl Olson, who added that it's unusual for a defendant in a public records lawsuit to initiate a cross-complaint against the entity or individual that requested the records. It will also drive up the cost of the litigation, Olson said. 'You can't get anything from a Public Records Act plaintiff unless their case is, quote, 'clearly frivolous,'' Olson said. 'Our case is definitely not 'clearly frivolous.' In fact, we wouldn't have filed it unless we had a good case. It's worth noting that the city itself said that he had refused to search unless and until a court ordered him to do so.' Neither Bausch nor Paso Robles City Attorney Elizabeth Hull responded to The Tribune's request for comment on this story. It is unclear from Bausch's cross-complaint what exactly he is suing The Tribune for, but he has marked that he would like The Tribune and/or the city to pay for his legal fees and any other damages. In his complaint, he wrote the 'number of public records requests are vexatious and deceptive as to dates and as to volume of actual requests. (The Tribune) fails to take into account (The Tribune's) own responsibility for the length of time it is taking (Bausch) to fully respond to (The Tribune's) over seven hundred individual requests.' An identical statement was written in his case management conference statement, and a nearly identical statement was written in his formal response to The Tribune's lawsuit. The Tribune has not submitted 700 hundred public records requests. It submitted 19, with the only five outstanding requests being records from Bausch's personal devices of which he has refused to disclose. The Tribune filed its lawsuit after the city said Bausch was refusing to search and disclose documents unless ordered by a court to do so. Paso Robles, councilman clash over who's to blame for Tribune's records lawsuit Bausch, however, claims that is a lie, that he has not refused to search and is, in fact, doing so currently. He says he's been directed to conduct 700 searches, but other than turning over one recording, he has produced no records responsive to the requests. As a result, The Tribune turned to the courts for help. 'We reasonably felt that we had no choice but to bring the lawsuit,' Olson said. 'I know after the lawsuit was filed he denied making that comment. But when you've got a city telling you one of their own councilmen is refusing to search, I think it's reasonable to take that at face value. And we still haven't received records, even though Mr. Bausch has said that he's searching.' In regards to the city, Bausch believes it should be responsible for paying his legal fees. 'The City of Paso Robles' failure to provide legal counsel to Defendant Bausch based on Ms. Hull's misleading premise has created an undue hardship for Defendant Bausch in retaining legal counsel,' he wrote in the cross-complaint. According to a March 20 email from Hull to Bausch, Hull wrote the city was declining him legal counsel because of his 'refusal to cooperate with the City responding to Public Records Act requests, to provide your personal devices to the City for review, to timely complete a search of your personal devices on your own, or to sign the numerous affidavits that have been presented to you regarding responding to the outstanding PRA requests.' Bausch was invited to participate in the City Council closed-session meeting discussion of whether the city should represent him, but left the discussion early, Hull wrote in the email. Bausch claims Hull's statements are false. Bausch's filings come just two days after he admitted to withholding documents on Cal Coast News reporter Karen Velie's radio show 'Sound Off.' 'I want to make very clear that I am fulfilling the records requests. It's not that I'm not doing those searches. I am searching for the records that The Tribune has requested,' Bausch told Velie on Wednesday. 'What I'm not doing is turning them over to BBK.' BBK is the law firm that represents the city. 'I don't think I need to give (the records) to BBK, the city's attorney, if the city isn't going to represent me,' Bausch continued on the radio show. 'I think I should just either give them to my attorney, or if I don't have an attorney, I should just give them directly to The Tribune.' Exclusive: Paso Robles councilman made threats, spread rumors, school board colleagues say During an April 9 court hearing, San Luis Obispo Superior Court Judge Michael Kelley said the city did not have to require an affidavit that says the search is complete until the search is actually complete. 'I can't understand how, if the court has ordered a rolling production, you could be required with the first tranche to state under oath that you provided everything,' Kelley told Bausch during the hearing. Kelley also told Bausch the city has a right to review all the records that are responsive to The Tribune's requests. Despite the April 9 statements from Kelley, Bausch continues to cite the affidavit issue as a reason why he has not produced responsive documents. He cited this reason in Velie's Wednesday show and also in his Friday statement filed in court. On the radio show, Bausch said he believed the judge stated that there was not a decision made as to whether he should give records to the city but that he did not have to sign an affidavit yet. He said on Velie's radio show he is 'hanging onto records' until a decision is made. According to Bausch's case management conference statement, filed also on Friday, Bausch claimed he was instructed by an attorney appointed by the city to represent him in former city manager Ty Lewis' $2.275 million claim to wait to search for documents relating to The Tribune's requests until March 16 or when a settlement between the city and Lewis was reached. The settlement was reached on Jan. 26. Also in his statement, Bausch claimed to have not leaked a recording of a meeting between him, Lewis and Mayor John Hamon to Velie. The Tribune had initially requested the recording in October. 'Bausch did not leak, send or otherwise deliver the tape to anyone except his attorney,' he wrote in the statement. 'Bausch notes there was another reporter in the pastry shop who claims to also have made a recording that day.' Velie posted two different versions of the recording to Cal Coast News' YouTube channel — the first version including an introduction by Bausch that says it's his copy and the second with the introduction deleted. The audio posted by Velie is identical to the audio the Tribune finally received in response to its request — three months after its initial request — except for a few seconds of background noise at the end. The introduction, which was deleted from Cal Coast News public YouTube, was also identical. Bausch claims it's the city who's to blame for the delay in responding to The Tribune's requests. He claimed his attorney, appointed by the city's insurance company to represent him during Lewis' claim, 'butted heads' with the city's public records process, so the city replaced him. The second attorney was also replaced because of a 'conflict check,' he said. 'The third attorney kept a low profile and survived,' Bausch wrote. 'They, too, saw the benefit of preserving all records until a final settle (sic) agreement with the employee was reached.' He said once the settlement was reached, the city's insurance attorneys had a 'new concern' that releasing 'some or all of the embargoed emails and/or text messages could trigger a lawsuit based on some real or imagined defamation.' Bausch then requested the the city and its legal counsel review the documents submitted by Bausch and withhold or redact any documents that may prove to be 'Insensitive, inflammatory, derogatory, defamatory or in any way violate the terms of the Settle (sic) Agreement.' However, a settlement agreement does not warrant withholding or redacting public records, Olson said. 'That's something which is inconsistent with both the language and certainly the spirit of the Public Records Act,' Olson said. 'The whole purpose of the Public Records Act is to allow the public and the press to be able to see what the government and its officials are doing and to be able to hold public officials accountable.'
Yahoo
10-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Paso Robles, councilman clash over who's to blame for Tribune's records lawsuit
The city of Paso Robles and Councilmember Chris Bausch pointed fingers at each other Wednesday in the first court hearing over who's responsible for delaying the release of public records requested by The Tribune. But there were two things everyone agreed on: The Tribune had a right to the records, and the issues should be resolved in a timely manner. The Tribune sued both Bausch and the city for violating the Public Records Act in March after the city claimed Bausch refused to comply with state law unless ordered to do so by a court. Bausch, for his part, denies that allegation. He held the public records delay was the city's fault, claiming attorneys hired to represent him in former city manager Ty Lewis' $2.275 million claim had told him to not respond to requests. He also claimed the city wrongly denied him legal representation, and he demanded the city provide him an attorney. As Bausch searches for an attorney to represent him — it was a 'probably a mistake' to represent himself, he said — he is also claiming to be searching for public records. In an April 2 court filing, Bausch claimed the search — which he has allegedly been doing since January despite having requests dating back to October — will take him six months to complete. He also asked to have himself dismissed from the lawsuit and for The Tribune's outstanding records requests to be dismissed, according to the filing. Both the city and Bausch are expected to have their response to The Tribune's lawsuit filed by April 21. The city is expected to provide a log of any records that are exempt from disclosure and why by the next hearing on April 30. Bausch spoke about his public records delays publicly and in depth for the first time Wednesday, representing himself during the first hearing in The Tribune's legal case. The councilmember claimed he is currently conducting around 700 individual searches on his personal devices for the delayed records — an effort he said has been ongoing since before city attorney Elizabeth Hull sent her February email to The Tribune calling him out for refusing to comply with public records law. Bausch did not specify when he started searching for the records and refused to clarify this detail with a Tribune reporter following the hearing. Bausch did acknowledge to the court it would be in his 'best interest' to turn over the responsive records. He also denied Hull's claim that he wouldn't turn over records without an order from a judge. 'That quote is, in fact, a lie,' he said. Instead, administrative hangups, questions and concerns have prevented Bausch from turning over documents so far, he said. Tribune sues city of Paso Robles, Chris Bausch after councilman refuses to release records The councilman claimed in court that he attempted to upload a batch of responsive emails to the city's server on Jan. 24. However, the files were corrupted in the process, Bausch said, forcing him to start his search anew. 'To be sure, that conversion failure is probably on me,' Bausch added. Bausch said Jan. 24 was also the date he submitted the recording of a meeting among himself, Paso Robles Mayor John Hamon and former city manager Ty Lewis at Angela's Pastries — a public record The Tribune first requested in October. That request was at first denied by the city but later reopened after a clip of the recording was leaked online by Cal Coast News reporter Karen Velie in December. Velie posted what she said was a full version of the recording in January. The full recording was provided to The Tribune by the city on Feb. 7 — just shy of two months after Velie initially released the partial recording. According to Bausch's case management statement, which he filed in court, he did not release the recording earlier 'on advice of counsel.' 'More questions came in from across typical media contacts but curiously, only the SLO Tribune sent the formal CPRA requests, eight all together to me, seeking to expose some sort of conspiracy to the employee who had made the hostile work environment claim,' he said in the filing. Bausch has refused to speak to The Tribune on the record since October, despite multiple attempts. In a Jan. 7 email to Hull and attorney Richard Egger, which is typically attorney-client privileged but was attached to the court filing, Bausch wrote, 'I recorded the March 8, 2024, meeting to protect myself against a perceived risk that my discussion might later be misrepresented. I did not record the meeting with the intent to create a city record subject to public disclosure.' In addition to the technological difficulties he faced, Bausch also aired to the court a laundry list of concerns about the city's handling of his search for records and recent refusal to provide him with legal representation. According to Bausch, he has been represented by three different lawyers since Lewis first filed his claim against the city. Bausch said his first attorney, appointed through the city's insurer, clashed with city attorney Hull after Bausch directed Hull to communicate with the attorney about public records requests, rather than the councilman himself. The second attorney also had to be replaced, Bausch said. In the process of searching for records responsive to The Tribune's requests, Bausch said he was counseled not to release records that could potentially trigger a defamation lawsuit, presumably by Lewis, who alleged in his claim that Bausch harassed and spread rumors about him. That advice was given after the settlement agreement had been reached between the two, Bausch said. And now, after Bausch's alleged refusal to comply with public records law, the city has refused to supply him with legal counsel, he said. Exclusive: Paso Robles councilman made threats, spread rumors, school board colleagues say A March 20 email attached to Bausch's statement illuminated a backroom conversation at City Hall, confirming that detail. The email, sent from Hull to Bausch, claimed the Paso Robles City Council discussed The Tribune's lawsuit in closed session March 19, the same day The Tribune served Bausch with the lawsuit. During that meeting, the subject of Bausch's legal counsel was brought up, Hull wrote. Bausch was invited to participate in that conversation, Hull wrote, but he left the meeting before it was finished. Ultimately, the city decided not to provide Bausch's legal representation due to his 'refusal to cooperate' with the city's public records process. Bausch took issue with that decision in court Wednesday. 'We need to come to some sort of an agreement for the city to correct course in, what I believe, is a serious error in the city's judgment in convincing City Council to deny legal representation to me on the basis of me not providing a search of my devices,' Bausch told Judge Kelley. 'If they use that as a basis for not providing counsel to me, they were in error, and they need to pay for counsel.' Judge Michael C. Kelley replied: 'That dispute is not before me today, and I'm not even sure it would be before me in any form or shape in this case.' Bausch also asked the court whether the city has the right to review his public records or if he should hand the records over straight to the judge or The Tribune, since the city is no longer representing him. 'I think since I have been cut loose from the city of Paso Robles, I believe BBK has given up their right to accept these documents,' Bausch said. BBK is the law firm that represents the city. BBK attorney Egger, who appeared in court virtually representing Paso Robles, emphasized the city's need to examine the documents prior to their release by Bausch. In its review process, the city would be looking for potential redactions or withholdings, including information falling under attorney-client privilege, work product privilege or other legal exemptions for public records. Kelley agreed with the city. Kelley told Bausch the city does have a right to review the records for redactions and exemptions prior to their release, even though the city is no longer representing him. Kelley also clarified that the city has a right to provide records to The Tribune on a rolling basis, but should not require Bausch to sign an affidavit until he has fully completed his searches. In addition to not representing Bausch in court, it appears the city may also file a cross-complaint against him. In Wednesday's hearing, Egger told Kelley the city was considering a cross-complaint, but did not specify what that would entail. But Bausch clarified it in his own statement, saying Egger 'threatened to file a cross-complaint against me.' According to Bausch's court filing, Egger told the councilman the city was going to file a cross-complaint against him because Bausch was 'a threat to the city.' Bausch claimed in his filing that Egger was unable to articulate how or why he was a threat, chalking the issue up to the repeal of the city's controversial paid parking program. 'Perhaps there are lingering sour grapes over my request that BBK reimburse the City $1,000,000 in legal billing for admittedly poor advice regarding a failed parking program,' Bausch wrote in the filing. 'I find it sad that their parking vendetta is turning this ugly.' Bausch claimed Egger 'is apparently unwilling to seek remedies that would likely save Paso Robles taxpayers quite a bit of money,' including mediation, settlement conferences or arbitration. 'I have requested that the court either transfer jurisdiction of this case to federal court or dismiss all remaining public record requests as I truly believe there was not any level of animosity between the employee and myself that has been imagined,' Bausch wrote in the filing. The federal courts do not have jurisdiction over state public records act requests. 'If the court in its wisdom and discretion believes that I should continue to search through my personal devices, I will respect the court's decision, but I ask the court to realize that I volunteer to be a city councilperson. I can't control who sends me an email or text,' Bausch wrote. Bausch claimed 'he is not the enemy here' and that the independent investigation into Lewis' claim found Lewis' allegations 'never existed,' calling Lewis' allegations 'the fantasy that might have led to a large payout (that) never materialized.' The Tribune requested all investigative documents and reports regarding Lewis' claim on Dec. 10. The city denied the Tribune's request on Dec. 17, claiming the records were exempt from disclosure under personnel privacy and attorney-client privileges. In the final statement of his filing, Bausch parroted a false claim about The Tribune that has been wielded by other critics in recent months. 'I don't think I should have to pay for McClatchy's fancy inhouse attorney,' he wrote. 'I know they are allegedly going out of business and I'm sure sorry about that, but I didn't cause that to happen. I don't want to donate to the cause.'
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
When sedition came to Montana …
A montage created by the Montana Historical Society of people arrested and convicted of seditious speech during the World War I era. This photo is by no means exhaustive. Seventy-two Montanans were charged, tried and convicted for running afoul of the Montana Sedition Act. Early on the morning of April 13, 1918, a group of Billings residents surrounded the house of Herman Bausch, which happens to be right across the street from where I live now. Bausch was a German immigrant who had moved to Billings a few years earlier and started farming just outside of town. He was highly respected in Billings for being a bit of an innovator, one of the first locals to plant an orchard. But that morning, he was confronted by a mob because he had been included on a list of Billings residents that had not purchased Liberty bonds to help support America's entry into World War I. Bausch had stated: 'I am opposed to war…all war that is aggressive and oppressive. But if Wall Street plutocrats insist on further bloodshed, let them finance it. Voluntarily, I will not contribute financially to this world calamity.' The mob pressed Bausch to change his mind and buy some Liberty bonds, and when he refused, they threatened to string him up in one of the apple trees in his yard. But instead they dragged him off to the local Elks Club, where a group of more than 50 people had gathered. This crowd spent several hours grilling Bausch, trying again to convince him to buy bonds, but he would not budge. So he was charged under the Montana Sedition Act, and sentenced to four years in prison. Teddy Roosevelt once said that patriotism means standing with one's country, not standing with the president. But America has a checkered past when it comes to using patriotism as a cudgel to keep people from expressing themselves, and one of the most egregious examples of that started right here in Montana. When war broke out in Europe in 1914, Americans were almost universally opposed to becoming involved in the conflict. The overall sentiment was that the conflict was none of our business, but there was also a general feeling that it wouldn't last long. But as the war dragged on, the allies—which included Great Britain, France, Russia, and China—pressed President Woodrow Wilson to change his mind. The longer it lasted, the more concerned they were about having the resources necessary to fight off the Axis, which consisted of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Italy. Two major events played a huge role in swaying public sentiment. First, German U-boats sank the Lusitania, a British ocean liner, in 1915. The incident killed 1198 people, and 128 of them were American. The second event was the revelation in January 1917 that German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmerman had carried out a secret diplomatic correspondence with the German Ambassador to Mexico, proposing that if Mexico joined forces with the Germans, Germany would help them regain control of Texas, Arizona and New Mexico. Although Wilson won reelection in 1916 on a platform of keeping Americans out of the war, it was just a few months after his inauguration that he declared war on Germany, and it was as if a switch had been flipped. A country that had been so firmly neutral suddenly developed a rabid form of nationalism. Wilson established the Committee on Public Information, which distributed books and pamphlets, sent out speakers, and even made films, spreading strong opinions about German immigrants, and calling on everyone to buy Liberty bonds to support the war effort. In Montana, Gov. Sam Stewart got so caught up in this nationalist fervor that he called a special session of the Legislature just a few weeks after Wilson declared war, and convinced them to pass The Montana Sedition Act, which was an expansion of a previous bill called the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act was designed to pressure anyone who published works that undermined the war effort, but the Sedition Act took that sentiment one step further, encouraging local law enforcement to seek out people who simply spoke out against the war, or failed to show their support. During the next two years, 78 Montanans were convicted under the Sedition Act, most of whom were sentenced to 20 years. These people were not activists or troublemakers. They were farmers and salesman, and even housewives. One man, rancher Faye Rumsey, was sentenced to 20 years after a mob confronted him for not buying Liberty bonds, insisting that he kiss the American flag to show his loyalty. Another was convicted after saying that he wished the Kaiser would come over and straighten things out in his own county. Once the war ended, people came to their senses, and the Montana Sedition Act was repealed in 1921. The people serving sentences were released. But not before Herman Bausch lost his 2-year-old son and wasn't allowed to travel from Deer Lodge to Billings for the funeral. And not before Faye Rumsey's wife lost their ranch and had to give up all 12 of their children to the state. Many of these siblings never saw each other again. In 2006, Gov. Brian Schweitzer issued a pardon to everyone who had been convicted under the Sedition Act, and it was at that ceremony that several of Faye Rumsey's grandchildren met for the first time. Herman Bausch was able to return to the house across the street from where I live and continue to farm, having more children. But extreme nationalism left its mark on his life, as it did on many innocent Montanans. As Bausch said when he was arrested, 'If what I did was a crime, then there are thousands of other people in this country who are just as guilty as I am.'
