Cal Coast News posts conflicting recordings of Paso Robles cafe meeting in Ty Lewis case
On Friday, Cal Coast News reporter Karen Velie posted what she said was the full recording of a March meeting among three Paso Robles city officials.
But it was only up for a couple hours before an issue arose, when the audio on the news site’s YouTube channel was suddenly deactivated without explanation — and replaced with a new, altered version.
Meanwhile, an examination of the timeline of Velie’s comments about the recording and how she obtained it now show multiple inconsistencies.
The recording, which documents a meeting between Councilmember Chris Bausch, Mayor John Hamon and city manager Ty Lewis, is currently at the center of an ongoing fight at City Hall over public records.
It also relates to Lewis’ $2.275 million complaint against the city and his allegations that Bausch and Velie conspired against him to oust him from his position as the city’s top administrator.
In her Friday article, Velie claimed that both she and Bausch recorded the March meeting individually.
But that narrative contradicts the story Velie has put forth since at least October, when she said that she had “never heard the tape” and did not record or receive a recording. She also previously said that she was present for only 20 minutes of the hour-long conversation.
Lewis told The Tribune he was not aware that Velie was recording the meeting at a Paso Robles bakery. Hamon declined to comment for this story but told The Tribune in December that he believed Velie was sitting at least three tables away and could not have overheard the meeting.
Velie, however, said Wednesday on the radio that she was no more than a few feet away.
Both Bausch and Velie did not respond to multiple requests for comment or to specific questions emailed to them by The Tribune.
As part of its Reality Check series, The Tribune looked into the two versions of the recording posted by Cal Coast News, as well as Velie’s various claims about them.
Cal Coast News reporter gives inconsistent statements about recording
The genesis of this story dates back about nine months.
On March 21, Velie wrote a story about a meeting among Bausch, Hamon and Lewis that took place at Angela’s Pastries on March 8.
The meeting, Velie wrote, “was overheard by a reporter at an adjacent table,” who she later acknowledged was her.
In a March 22 email copied to The Tribune and also obtained via Public Records Act request, Lewis told Velie her version of the story was inaccurate and that Bausch recorded the meeting. He responded by telling her she should release the entire recording “without editorial” and asked her, “Where’s the recording? If you’re committed to shining a light and exposing the truth, you shouldn’t shy away from producing it.”
“I heard about a half hour of your conversation clearly, and took notes,” Velie responded. “I have heard your allegations that I wasn’t there but had heard the recording, then that I was there with (Gary) Lehrer and (John) Roush, both inaccurate claims that make no difference in what you said.”
Several months later on Oct. 6 — after Lewis filed his complaint with the city alleging a conspiracy against him — Velie wrote in a story that an audio recording corroborated what she wrote in a previous article about the meeting and claimed it rebutted Lewis’ accusation of a conspiracy.
Velie claims the recording shows her March 21 article, which stated Bausch was chastised for using the word “staff” when describing agendized staff reports, was accurate. The recording reveals Lewis and Hamon asked Bausch to not attribute critical comments to “staff” but rather the specific individuals who said them.
Lewis also asked Bausch to not repeat unfounded rumors about colleagues, staff and City Council issues and told him repeatedly that the goal of the meeting was to treat other councilmembers with respect so the council could be united, even if members had different opinions.
“I wanted you here in order to be able to hopefully deliver as best I can concerns that I have about how we as a group deal with conflict, and is there a better way to conclude that. That’s my whole goal. And I’m sorry if that’s how it came across as an attack, because I respect the heck out of you, and I don’t ever want you to make people fall in line. That is never my expectation,” Lewis can be heard telling Bausch on the recording. “I think that if we were to write a white paper on just personal dynamics and interpersonal skills, that there are all lessons that we can learn.”
On Oct. 18, Velie wrote in an emailed statement to The Tribune.
“Lewis initially said I falsify (sic) reported I was at the shop while accusing Chris Bausch of sharing his recording of the meeting with me. In a later email, Lewis said he saw me walk in with John Roush and Gary Lehrer. Now he is claiming I was hiding outside. Even if any of his accusations were accurate, which they are not, it is irrelevant,” Velie responded. “Lewis was a public official discussing city business in a public place a few feet from a reporter.”
Velie, Lewis and Hamon all saw Roush and Lehrer, two Lewis critics, at the meeting, according to their previous statements.
To determine exactly what happened, The Tribune filed a public records request on Oct. 21, requesting the recording of the meeting from the city.
On Oct. 24 during her “Sound-off” radio show on KPRL, Velie addressed the issue again.
“I was there for probably 20 minutes of their conversation,” she said, adding, “I have never heard the tape.”
But only a few months later, her story changed again.
On Wednesday, Velie appeared to say on her radio show that she did listen to a tape of the meeting, while stumbling over her words:
“The other thing that’s been inaccurately reported is that I got the copy of the tape, a copy of the tape, at the same time the Tribune and (Paso Robles Daily News Columinst Clive) Pinder were asking for it,” she said on the air. “I am sorry, I wrote my story back in March. If you asked for a tape in October, I don’t think it’s the same time that I was writing my story back in March. And that would not be that, he gave it, that if Chris Bausch did give me a copy of the tape, he gave it to me at the exact time they were asking for it.”
She also said for the first time Wednesday that she recorded the meeting herself.
“I was there at — sitting feet from — Ty Lewis, probably no more than three feet from Ty Lewis,” she said. “I did tape the conversation. I was there.”
According to her Cal Coast News story posted Friday and accompanying what she said is the full recording, she stated that both she and Bausch recorded the meeting.
Velie did not respond to specific questions from the Tribune asking her to clarify the inconsistencies in her statements.
Cal Coast News’ ‘full recording’ altered after being up for about an hour
On Wednesday’s radio show, Velie said she planned to release the full recording, including “the beginning of the meeting, where Chris Bausch says that he is — he explains why the meeting was called, who’s at the meeting.”
The version of the audio Velie posted Friday around 9 a.m. on the Cal Coast News YouTube channel begins with an AI-style introduction by an anonymous narrator.
“The following is a recording of the entire conversation at the pastry shop,” the introduction proceeds, before cutting to Bausch speaking.
But when Bausch begins — stating who was at the meeting and where it was — it sounds as if he’s holding the recorder close to his mouth and no background or ambient noise can be heard, even after he finishes and seems to place the phone on the table, a seven-second period of the tape that is otherwise silent despite being in a busy cafe.
Then, the recording resumes, cutting in to Lewis speaking mid-sentence, with ambient noise now clearly heard in the background.
“(Unintelligible) As a council member, I think it’s imperative that we get that out there on the table,” Lewis says just after the silence ends. It’s unclear what he is talking about.
But that first version of the audio was only up for a short time Friday morning.
Then, at around 10 a.m., the recording on Cal Coast News’ YouTube channel was moved to “private” and would not play.
By noon, the video was public again, with one notable change: Bausch’s introduction was missing.
The new version, which was still active as of Saturday morning, goes straight from the AI introduction to Lewis speaking in the cafe.
But, also as of Saturday morning, the version downloaded from YouTube still includes Bausch’s introduction despite the audio playing without it online.
Chris Lambert, an Orcutt audio engineer and host of the Kristin Smart “Your Own Backyard” podcast, analyzed a portion of the first version of the audio blindly for The Tribune.
He said it was clear that Bausch’s introduction and the point where Lewis begins to speak were recorded separately.
He said that the audio in Bausch’s introduction has a limiter on it, which prevents the audio from going above -1 decibel. When Lewis begins speaking, the audio peaks at 0 decibels.
“That indicates that the first part was either recorded in a different setting than the rest, or with a different recording device entirely,” Lambert said.
He also noted that Lewis’ speaking began mid-sentence, which also indicates it was recorded separately.
Lewis told The Tribune the men did discuss recording the meeting before the audio in the recording begins, but that Bausch did not give a formal introduction to the recording. He added that he was unsure when Bausch actually started recording the meeting.
Bausch and Velie did not respond to The Tribune questions regarding whether the introduction was recorded separately or why it was removed.
What does the full recording show?
During the ensuing recording of the meeting, Bausch can be heard repeatedly bringing up the city’s paid parking program.
The paid parking program was a major issue in Paso Robles at the time, sparking wide public outcry before it was eventually scrapped by the council.
Lewis and Hamon can be heard telling Bausch they don’t have a problem with his opinions or beliefs, but just want him to treat his colleagues with respect.
About 10 minutes into the recording, Bausch asks Lewis, “When’s the last time you went through a Brown Act training?”
“Probably within the last six months,” Lewis responds.
The Brown Act requires government officials to discuss the public’s business in public settings. It has narrow exemptions, including one that prevents government officials from sharing closed-session information with the public. This includes journalists.
According to the state government code, a government official who willfully violates the Brown Act is guilty of a misdemeanor.
About 14 minutes into the recording, Lewis can be heard warning Bausch about the recording violating the Brown Act if shared.
“By the way, you can’t use this if you’re gonna release ... (unintelligible). No, no, no, I just meant out to the public if we’re gonna talk Brown Act stuff,” Lewis tells Bausch. “Before we go down that road, I just want to make sure of your intentions.”
Bausch responds: “I’m not trying to release this to the public (unintelligible) court and then your attorney would help you dispute it. This is a public building, so you can record in it if you want because —”
“That no p— I have nothing to hide. That’s not (unintelligible),” Lewis interjects.
“Neither do I. Thank you for that, for bringing that up,” Bausch responds.
The issue that appears to be a Brown Act violation was Bausch’s allegation that City Attorney Elizabeth Hull had a conflict representing the city despite a closed-session vote that found she did not have a conflict, according to the recording.
Neither Velie nor Bausch responded to questions from The Tribune asking where the recording came from or whether Bausch shared the recording directly with Velie.
Bausch did not respond when The Tribune asked him whether he knowingly violated the Brown Act.
Was it legal for a reporter to record the meeting without consent?
Velie’s claim she recorded the meeting separately — despite not being invited or getting permission from the participants — raises another question.
Is it legal to record such a meeting in public like this?
The question is ethically and legally complicated, experts interviewed by The Tribune said.
On one hand, the California Invasion of Privacy Act requires that consent must be given by all parties before a confidential conversation can be recorded. According to Lewis, Velie did not obtain his consent before recording the conversation.
However, the law only applies to conversations in which there is a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” This excludes meetings that are open to the public or situations where the conversation might be reasonably overheard or recorded.
It’s unclear whether or not there can be a reasonable expectation of privacy during a meeting between public officials in a public setting, even if that meeting isn’t necessarily open to the public, First Amendment Coalition attorney David Loy said.
Additionally, by recording the conversation, Bausch made it a public record, calling any reasonable expectation of privacy further into question, Loy said.
It’s unclear if Velie knew Bausch was recording the conversation at the same time she claims to have recorded it.
The Invasion of Privacy Act does apply equally to journalists and members of the public, Loy said.
Ethically, however, reporters should obtain consent from all parties to a conversation before recording. Exceptions include designated public meetings.
Also, Loy said, a recording of a meeting between public officials is a public record regardless of whether the recording was made on an official’s private or public device. But the rules around how long public records must be saved on private devices are muddy.
“There’s all kinds of different rules about retention,” Loy said.
Regardless of the legal technicalities, it would “raise serious questions” if a public official were routinely deleting texts, emails or other public records off of their personal device, Loy said.
The Tribune is unable to verify whether the newly released audio is in fact the full, unedited version of the meeting because Bausch has so far refused to turn over the recording to the city, despite multiple Public Records Act requests and a threat of litigation.
This story was originally published January 11, 2025 at 1:55 PM.
.JPG)
