BRADENTON – County Commission Chair Vanessa Baugh has reached a settlement with paralegal Michael Barfield regarding the Public Records Act lawsuit Barfield filed in December.
On June 19, Baugh signed a settlement agreement that required her to pay Barfield $4,319. When contacted on Thursday, July 1, Barfield said he received a check from Baugh the previous day and the check was drawn on her personal bank account. Barfield said he now considers the lawsuit to be “a done deal.”
According to the executed settlement document, “Without admitting any liability, the parties recognize that it is in the parties’ best interest to settle the action and claims between them. The parties are entering into this agreement for the purpose of avoiding greater future costs.”
Barfield’s civil lawsuit originally named County Commissioner James Satcher as the lone defendant and Baugh and Commissioner Kevin Van Ostenbridge were later named as co-defendants.
In April, Satcher and Van Ostenbridge agreed to similar settlement agreements that called for them to collectively pay Barfield $6,000. In May, the Manatee County Commission voted 7-0 in favor of county taxpayers reimbursing Satcher and Van Ostenbridge approximately $56,000 to cover their attorney fees and settlement costs. When the county commission reconvenes later this month, Baugh will have an opportunity to seek similar county reimbursement for her attorney fees and settlement costs.
Baugh deposition
The Sun obtained a transcript of the deposition Barfield conducted of Baugh under oath on May 14. During the deposition, Baugh admitted she did not write the county resolution pertaining to meeting procedures that she presented for county commission adoption on Nov. 19. She also admitted that she previously claimed to have written the resolution herself.
The resolution Baugh presented on Nov. 19 with no advance notice given to the public or the commission as a whole pertained to meeting protocols and what types of commission actions could be taken during a particular type of meeting. The resolution was adopted that day by a 4-3 vote.
That commission action preceded Van Ostenbridge’s motion, which was not publicly noticed, to put then-County Administrator Cheri Coryea on notice that her termination would be discussed at a future meeting. Several weeks later, the county resolution adopted on Nov. 19 was rescinded by a unanimous commission vote.
Tallahassee-based attorney George Levesque represented Baugh at the deposition and throughout the legal proceeding. The deposition transcript provides a verbatim record of the verbal exchanges that occurred regarding the county resolution.
“Let’s talk about the resolution that was introduced by you at the November 19 meeting. Do you recall that?”
“Yes,” Baugh responded.
When was the first time that you saw that resolution?” Barfield asked.
“Middle part of November. I don’t recall the exact date,” Baugh responded.
Did you draft that resolution?” Barfield asked.
“No,” Baugh responded.
“Have you previously made statements that you did?” Barfield asked
“Yes,” Baugh responded.
“And who drafted the resolution?” Barfield asked.
“Object to the form. I’m going to instruct her not to answer,” Levesque responded.
Barfield then paused the deposition and asked that Circuit Court Judge Charles Sniffen be contacted by telephone regarding Baugh’s refusal to answer his question.
When addressing the judge, Levesque said, “I’m not aware of any cases that would extend that type of public records obligation for disclosure where a private citizen hands a paper document to a government official that would then allow someone requesting the record to go back to that private citizen and say you have to give me the native file of the document that you provided in hard copy form to the government official. It would be a different story if it was drafted by Commissioner Baugh herself or one of the county staff created that document and then provided it (to) Commissioner Baugh.”
Barfield then said, “I think I am entitled to some leeway as to the circumstances of how this record came into existence and whether there are any other records that exist relating to the creation of this resolution. It was a critical document that started this entire case.”
When issuing his decision, Sniffen said, “I don’t believe the public records statute permits a wholesale investigation of the thought processes and motivations of the people who are the subject of the request. I think going into what the origin of documents was, who possessed them, when they were processed, things like that go beyond what is contemplated by the statute.”
When the deposition resumed, Baugh told Barfield she received the resolution in the lobby of the county administration building from an individual whom she did not name. Baugh told Barfield she didn’t have an appointment with that individual and that it was a random encounter.
Baugh told Barfield she then took a photo of the document and sent the photo to then-Chief Assistant County Attorney Bill Clague.
“I wanted to make sure that it was appropriate to bring for our board. I wanted him to look at it and say it was proper,” Baugh told Barfield during the deposition.
Baugh said she does not know what became of the original document and she told Barfield she had no additional contact with the individual who provided her with the resolution.
