Letter: Councilman responds to mayor’s apology at meeting
– An excerpt from a report of the August 6 Paso Robles City Council meeting by Editor Skye Pratt published Aug. 7 in the Paso Robles Daily News reads, “Mayor John Hamon made a statement at the beginning of Tuesday night’s meeting, apologizing to police staff for what he called ‘disgusting, uncalled for,’ remarks made by a city council member in regard to the recent decision about dogs being allowed in public parks. He said that the remarks were, ‘not in the best interest of the city,’ and were an attack on the police force and their efforts to consistently enforce city laws. Which exact comments he was referring to were not explicitly stated.”
City Councilman Chris Bausch
Tuesday’s meeting is available here. (Skip the ads and fast forward to 1:41.)
In response to Mayor John Hamon’s apology to Police Commander Ricky Lehr for comments Hamon found, “uncivil, disgusting and uncalled for,” and “not in the best interest of the city,” I ask the reader to please judge for yourself. A link to the discussion of Item J-12, Repealing Ordinance No. 489, Restricting Dogs in Public Places at the July 16 City Council Meeting can be found here. (Skip the ads and fast forward to 3:46.)
For the record, I met with Police Chief Damian Nord before the July 16 meeting and shared with him my intent. He said in essence to proceed and he would respond appropriately. Furthermore, I believe in, support, and appreciate the hard work and long hours our city staff, especially our police and fire personnel provide to Paso Roblans. However, my unwavering support does not diminish my responsibility to be critical when necessary seeking answers to questions posed by the community at large.
So why was Mayor Hamon compelled to apologize for my remarks? This is the third time that Hamon has called me out for my behavior on the dais. The first was for following Robert’s Rules of Order, calling for the question. According to Hamon, only the mayor can call for the question. He is wrong, anyone can call for the question. For the second time, Mayor Hamon was joined by City Manager Ty Lewis when I was chastised for calling staff “staff” and using the word “disingenuous” to describe the inability of the city to find parking violators’ information in order to issue refunds. As it turns out, the city did in fact have the information all along as was confirmed by the city manager only two weeks later. As everyone knows, staff is still “staff.”
So why this third time? Normally, the city manager would have communicated the council’s displeasure privately and directly to an offending council member. I speak from experience. However, because I have been informed by City Attorney Elizabeth Hull since last May not to meet, email, or contact the city manager due to a pending investigation, that wasn’t an option.
If you have already reviewed my questions and subsequent comments to Commander Lehr, I was civil, I wasn’t disgusting, and, according to many of my constituents and others on social media, most necessary. Chief Nord decided to respond to the council for Commander Lehr. He answered my questions even convincing Councilmember Strong to vote in favor of allowing dogs in our parks. Neither Mayor Hamon, nor Councilmembers Gregory, Strong or Roden intervened to stop my questions on July 16 because an intervention would have been inappropriate relative to the nature of questions and comments.
It has been suggested that their newfound outrage was suggested to them by others only after the meeting. For what reason? For me not being a team player? For not having my council meeting questions pre-approved by the city manager? For answering potential city council candidates’ questions? For voting against higher taxes? For worrying about injecting state water into the Paso Basin? For speaking out against retail cannabis sales? For complaining about the crime and faux cameras at the homeless encampment on Black Oak Dr? For asking that the council support a 2/3 vote by the people to approve any tax increase? For helping to overturn paid parking? For bringing up paid parking yet again after the Mayor never wanted to hear about it? For daring to ask that the city consider asking our legal counsel BBK and Dixon & Associates to reimburse citizens and the city for the mistakes allegedly made? Probably.
I believe I am once again being singled out for not being a rubber stamp, for asking difficult questions, and for listening and representing Paso Roblans first ahead of my own or others’ self-interests and personal agendas. After the Chris Williams fiasco at the Paso Robles School District, I am quite used to being persecuted for not being a rubber stamp. We know how that ended for the then-superintendent and school board. If you don’t, please see the SLO County Grand Jury report, A Cautionary Tale, and its aftermath.
November Elections are upon us. Change, even potential change, makes people, especially politicians, nervous. Others are nervous that a shift in the City Council could be detrimental. Do you know what else makes some people nervous? Apparently, their actions. Alleged violations regarding license plates, violating your opponent’s civil rights, and selling a business to even a wonderful buyer might be cause for concern.
If you are concerned about the direction of the City of Paso Robles, please vote in person this November. If you want things to change, please vote to replace those in office.
Respectfully,
Chris Bausch
Paso Robles
Editor’s note: Opinion pieces and letters to the editor are the personal opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Paso Robles Daily News or its staff. We welcome letters from local residents regarding relevant local topics. To submit one, click here.
