Deposition Catches Baugh in Another Lie

BRADENTON – On the heels of Manatee County residents learning of multiple discrepancies between County Commissioner Vanessa Baugh’s statements to investigators and the statements of multiple other witnesses in an investigation into "Vaccinegate" and a "VIP" list, comes another jarring revelation that brings the commissioner’s integrity into question.

In a deposition transcript obtained by the Bradenton Times appears another discrepancy by the commissioner in a separate county matter. On May 14, Commissioner Baugh was deposed by plaintiff and paralegal Michael Barfield. The deposition relates to a civil case Barfield brought against Baugh and fellow commissioners James Satcher and Kevin Van Ostenbridge. The case concerned public records requests filed after a November 19 emergency meeting that set into motion the board’s ultimate termination of then-County Administrator Cheri Coryea. Barfield sought to know whether any of the defendants communicated or corroborated in advance of the motion, which could be a violation of Florida’s Government in the Sunshine Law.

In the proceedings of the civil case, Barfield petitioned the court to allow testimony under penalty of perjury from Baugh, a petition that was approved by the court. While under oath, Baugh admitted that she inaccurately claimed to have personally authored a resolution amending BOCC policy and procedures that she brought before the board in the emergency meeting. On page 31 of the transcript, Barfield’s line of questioning turns to the subject of the resolution.

The November 19 emergency meeting was called under the pretense of concern Van Ostenbridge had that another pandemic shutdown was looming under the newly elected president, Joe Biden. During the emergency meeting, and after Van Ostenbridge requested the county attorney research any recourse in the event of a federally mandated shutdown, the discussion quickly moved into two unanticipated motions.

Without public notice or advance notice to fellow board members, Baugh presented a resolution for the board’s consideration that she claimed to have written. Several board members outwardly expressed their confusion with the purpose of the resolution. Commissioner Carol Whitmore, who was board chair at the time, said, "I know with the rules that this is a voting meeting, but to me it looks like something is going on, and I don’t know what. So, I will not, and hopefully, the commission would not, vote on this (resolution) today.“

Before Baugh began to read the resolution into the record, she pointed out that it lacked a resolution number, explaining she only recently turned a copy over to the county attorney.

The reading of the resolution was lengthy and legal. The wording was such that anyone watching the meeting likely did not understand what its purpose or action was. Likewise, the majority of the commissioners appeared baffled and uncertain what the resolution, if passed, would effectively do. Baugh paused at one point while reading her resolution to say, "it’s so formal," as though the formality of it came as a surprise to her.

While it seemed clear the resolution pertained to the board’s rules and procedures, it was not entirely clear in what way the resolution sought to alter them. Some members understood the resolution to say that, if passed, the board would have the ability to vote to change the rules at any time, without notice. Baugh summarized its intent by saying that it was her opinion there were many things within the current rules and procedures that needed to be changed, but mainly she wanted to address the board’s ability to change types of meetings or what actions could be taken in them.

Approximately 20 minutes into member discussion of the proposed resolution, Whitmore asked Baugh, "Did you write this?" and Baugh answered, "Yes."

After considerable back and forth, and while some members continued to express uncertainty and suspicion about the resolution, Whitmore said, "If we pass this today, and something happens that maybe couldn’t have happened before this, who knows, I didn’t know this was going on the agenda. I have a feeling something else is coming up, I’m not sure, but if it does, I will be the first to call it out."

Commissioners Servia and Bellamy requested time be given to better understand the resolution before the board moved to vote. However, Baugh made a motion to approve, and it was passed by the board in a 4-3 vote with Bellamy, Servia, and Whitmore casting dissenting votes.

After passing the resolution, Van Ostenbridge introduced his own motion proposing the board move to terminate County Administrator Cheri Coryea without cause. A move that left many questioning whether the previous resolution was in any way related to Van Ostenbridge’s motion, which also passed 4-3, with the same commissioners voting to approve it. It was the curiosity of this meeting and votes taken by the board that initially sparked Barfield to file records requests. The civil case was to address whether all records requested had been produced.

In a regular meeting on December 15, the subject of that resolution came up again. Whitmore, who was still chair at the time, explained that she made a note on the bottom of the resolution filing stating, "Original not provided to county by Commissioner Baugh."

Whitmore further explained that this was the first time that an original electronic copy had not been provided in such a circumstance. Whitmore asked again, "I just want to confirm to Commissioner Baugh that you wrote this resolution?" and again Baugh answered, "Yes I did.“

In a regular meeting on February 23, Whitmore made a motion to repeal the resolution on the grounds of the remaining lack of clarity as to the purpose of the resolution and that, in her judgment, it had not been utilized for any actionable purpose since its passing. Whitmore again requested Baugh to affirm that she wrote the resolution, though on that occasion Whitmore’s request went unanswered. Whitmore’s motion to repeal the resolution was passed by the board unanimously on February 23.

From the deposition transcript:

Barfield: Did you draft that resolution?

Baugh: No.

Barfield: Have you previously made statements that you did?

Baugh: Yes.

Barfield: How many times?

Baugh: Once.

Barfield: Just once?

Baugh: I believe so.

Barfield attempted to inquire who wrote the resolution, but Baugh declined to answer on the advice of her attorney. Baugh did offer that she received a copy of the resolution sometime in mid-November before forwarding it to the county attorney on November 18, the day before the emergency meeting. She also recounted to Barfield, while under oath, that she initially received a copy of the resolution by hand delivery in the lobby of the county administration building. She declined to say who the individual was who provided it to her, only saying that it was not a prearranged meeting and that she and said individual had randomly run into one another early in the day outside of the lobby. Baugh testified that she and the unnamed individual have not communicated again.

This past April, Barfield settled with defendants Satcher and Van Ostenbridge. The board unanimously voted to reimburse the two commissioners their attorney fees and settlements totaling approximately $56,000. A county court filing dated June 25 shows Baugh also recently accepted a settlement in the case, though it will not be known until after the board resumes meetings in late July whether they will vote to reimburse her fees and settlement.