New emails detail Paso Robles’ attempt to get public records from councilmember
Paso Robles City Councilmember Chris Bausch claims the city “insisted” he ignore legal advice he received from attorneys appointed to represent him during former city manager Ty Lewis’ $2.275 million claim, but the email he attached as evidence shows the city explaining the law and why he should follow it.
That email and others were included in a new declaration Bausch filed on Friday, in which he claimed the city’s statements about his failure to search and provide his personal devices are “misleading, duplicitous and disingenuous” and attached correspondence that he said supported that position.
He also claimed that “as a ‘modern’ city councilperson, I am something of a hybrid elected and employee by virtue of the benefits offered by the City of Paso Robles,” so the city should provide for his legal representation.
“As a target of vexatious, and some would say abusive and still ongoing Public Records Act requests, and as an elected and an employee, I am entitled to a full defense as is usual and customarily provided by the city/City Council,” Bausch wrote in his declaration.
The declaration was filed three days after the City of Paso Robles sued Bausch for violating the Public Records Act, alleging he has refused to comply with the law despite his obligations as an elected official. The Tribune first filed a lawsuit against both Bausch and the City of Paso Robles after the city told The Tribune Bausch would not produce records without a court order.
City councilmember claims he corrupted 500 files, emails show
According to the emails Bausch attached to his declaration, several of the city’s requests for his records do state, “You are responsible for searching your own devices and accounts confirming if you have responsive records; the City will not conduct searches of personal devices or accounts.”
But the city did not ask Bausch to sign one overall affidavit before all the searches were completed, the emails show. Rather, it asked Bausch to certify he’d conducted the searches required of each public records request on a rolling basis.
Bausch argued that point before the judge in the case’s first hearing on April 9.
The judge agreed he did not have to sign an affidavit until all the searches were complete. But the judge did not have the documents at that time showing how the city had requested affidavits be signed as each request was filled.
The Tribune has six outstanding requests, all for records on Bausch’s personal devices and accounts.
The emails also give Bausch upload instructions for his files.
On Jan. 22, Bausch claimed he had identified over 500 potentially responsive documents “with more to follow. Not all have been printed and reviewed yet.” He said he needed additional time to complete the work.
Bausch had still not uploaded any documents as of the morning of Jan. 24, according to an email sent to Bausch from Darren Ziegler, one of the city’s attorneys.
Ziegler offered to help Bausch over the phone with uploading his documents.
“It is imperative that you upload any records that are ready for transmission ASAP so that we can begin our review and analysis,” Ziegler told Bausch. “Doing so will allow us to communicate accurately to the requester that we have received and are reviewing records, hopefully further staving off the threat of litigation.”
Bausch then uploaded a single file — the recording of a meeting between him, Lewis and Mayor John Hamon that Bausch had already leaked to Cal Coast News — and claimed the rest of his files were corrupted when he attempted to upload them.
He claimed to have spent two weeks gathering the files, but then said that he must get back to his regular work so “progress will be slower.”
“I will admit it is taking longer and is more tedious than I anticipated. That being said, I don’t think anyone expected there to be over seven hundred searches. It is going to take some time.”
City tells councilmember that Lewis settlement agreement has no legal impact, emails show
Bausch presented email exchanges from Jan. 28 through Jan. 30 as evidence the city “insisted” he ignore advice given to him by attorneys appointed to represent him during Lewis’ claim. In the city’s lawsuit against Bausch, it said it has not and cannot verify Bausch’s claim.
On Jan. 28, Renee Bryant, another of the city’s attorneys, emailed Bausch a summary of a discussion between the two on the phone.
While Bausch acknowledged that he was aware of the requests and had responsive records, Bryant wrote in the email, he had not “run searches to identify all potentially responsive documents and you do not intend to provide BBK with any further records for review to the multiple PRA requests.”
BBK is the law firm that represents the city.
“You also do not intend to conduct any further searches of records on your personal devices,” Bryant wrote.
Bryant then asked Bausch to sign an affidavit if her understanding of their discussion was correct.
Bausch responded the next day that his recollection of the conversation was that they discussed uploading files without having to convert them, the number of searches that will be required and that he requested more time. He also said some of the PRAs ask for searches that may compromise Lewis’ settlement agreement.
Ziegler then responded to Bausch, saying that he disagreed with Bausch’s legal conclusions he made about what records to turn over, particularly when it comes to documents that may be disparaging toward Lewis.
“For several reasons, it is incorrect that the mutual non-disparagement agreement clause provides any legal basis upon which the city may decline to respond to PRA requests, or upon which you may decline to conduct necessary searches thereto,” Ziegler wrote.
Ziegler told Bausch the public’s right to access to public records was enshrined in the California Constitution and is not affected by contractual terms, Ziegler told Bausch. The city’s obligation to comply with records requests also cannot be overcome by contractual agreements, he said.
He explained that the non-disparagement clause was to ensure the parties involved do not make false, defamatory or derogatory statements related to Lewis’ claim in the future and that it does not apply to statements made prior to the settlement.
The agreement also sates, “The City of Paso Robles may be required to produce a copy of this agreement or other documents related to (Lewis’) claim or allegations upon request of a third party in accordance with the provisions of the California Public Records Act.”
The agreement has no legal impact on the city’s or Bausch’s obligations to comply with the Public Records Act, Ziegler said, asking Bausch to resume his searches and upload potentially responsive documents.
Ziegler then told Bausch that BBK and the City’s IT department could be made available to assist Bausch in his searches if Bausch requests it.
The next hearing in the case is scheduled for 9 a.m. on Wednesday, April 30, at the Paso Robles branch of the San Luis Obispo Superior Court.
This story was originally published April 29, 2025 at 11:56 AM.
