Paso Robles councilman describes Tribune, city settlement

September 11, 2025

OPINION by CHRIS BAUSCH

With regards to requests to respond to my co-respondent the City of Paso Robles’ attorney’s statement released on Sept. 8 and multiple stories published since by the petitioner the SLO Tribune, I am pleased to confirm that a settlement agreement was signed by the petitioner and myself last week and by the city on Sept. 8.

The settlement agreement will now be submitted to the San Luis Superior Court, case 25CV-0080, seeking approval and dismissal. Pending the court’s dismissal, I will be brief.

Related to a complaint filed by former City Manager Ty Lewis, the SLO Tribune filed 21 public records request seeking evidence that a conspiracy to fire the then city manager was justification in the complaint. Eight of the requests were specifically directed to me.

The City of Paso Robles had already turned the complaint over to our insurance company. The city attorney had ordered an investigation.

As required by law, the insurance company provided separate attorneys to defend the city and me. Citing a legal principle known as deliberative process privilege, my appointed attorney advised me to wait to turn over any responsive records until the complaint with the former city manager was either settled or litigated. The City had other reasons of their own for deciding to withhold certain records from the SLO Tribune. 

A second attorney agreed with my first attorney that any evidence that could prove my innocence thereby protecting both the city and myself should be preserved for the time being. Email records submitted to the court attest to these facts, facts that the city attorney choose to ignore.

At all times, I was acting in good faith and upon advice of the legal counsel appointed by the city’s insurance company.

Once the matter with the former city manager was settled in January,  I was advised by my appointed attorney to begin searching for responsive records.

When fully expounded, the SLO Tribune’s eight public record requests seeking evidence of a conspiracy resulted in over seven-hundred searches of my personal laptop and private phone. I did not have to be ordered by the court or anyone else to search. I turned over the first record, an audio file, on Jan. 24.

Not pleased with our progress, on March 10, the SLO Tribune filed a petition to compel delivery of the records still being withheld by the city and for the records I was still searching for.

By May 9,^, I was back in court and ready to deliver responsive records to the SLO Tribune. However, the city’s attorney from BBK, argued that I should first deliver the responsive records to BBK before the Tribune received the records.

The SLO Tribune’s attorney argued back that he should get the records first. To settle the dispute, the court directed me to deliver the already assembled records only to BBK. I complied the court’s request.

After BBK’s review, my responsive records were delivered to the SLO Tribune.

After their analysis of my personal emails and text messages, to their credit, the SLO Tribune admitted they could not find a conspiracy. I was not using my personal computer or phone to conduct city business, I was not hosting meetings nor calling in any way for the city manager to be terminated. Quite the opposite.

After I was deposed in preparation for trial, counsel for the SLO Tribune suddenly submitted a draft settlement agreement. Perhaps they realized that the PRA laws require only a timely acknowledgement of a public records request but does not set a time limit on delivery of those records especially when it comes to the complexity or quantity of the requests.

I was well within my rights to withhold records until the threat of litigation had passed. I was well within my rights to take several months to perform over seven hundred searches some of which yielded hundreds of potential records.

The city’s attorney could have easily recognized my right and their obligation to protect my innocence instead of siding with the SLO Tribune to falsely accuse me of breaking the law. No laws were broken in my response to the SLO Tribune yet the city still accuses me of breaking the law as recently as their statement dated Sept. 8.

Unfortunately for the taxpayers, the city is obligated to pay for the legal defense of their elected officials, myself included. After paying the former city manager $145,954 to “buy their peace,” the city will now be paying all of BBK’s fees, all of my attorney’s fees and a portion of the SLO Tribune’s attorneys fees.

The city’s attorney has stated they are doing so not because the city has to, (they do), but because it will save the city money in the long run. While that is true, all of this could have been avoided had our City Council made better decisions in the past. It is time for change.

BBK assigned at least five attorneys that I am aware of to this case, possibly more, plus three or more paralegals and legal secretaries only to lose without admitting wrongdoing with more billings still to come. I believe we have already overpaid.

Something is wrong and it is time the City Council own up to fixing our mistakes when it comes to our legal counsel.