‘Paranoia’ or ‘vendetta.’ Franklin official faces legal trouble in clash over door key

A fight over the lock on an office door has landed Franklin County Commissioner Stephen Bauman in potential legal trouble.

A search warrant request by Franklin County Sheriff Jim Raymond accuses the commissioner of obstructing the sheriff’s office in its job of providing security at the courthouse in Pasco.

Bauman reportedly refused to hand over the keys to his office after recently changing the lock.

Raymond also claimed in a police report that he has received “numerous” complaints about Bauman’s “ erratic and unpredictable behavior within the courthouse.”

Th allegations include concerns that Bauman, who just took office in January, was allegedly illegally carrying a gun in the courthouse and searching his office for hidden recording devices, including removing the ceiling tiles.

He also reportedly confronted the sheriff for leaving a computer printout on the chair in his office.

In mid-June, the sheriff said he learned Bauman had replaced the lock to his courthouse office, and then the commissioner refused to give Raymond a copy of the key to use in case of an emergency.

In response, the sheriff went to a Franklin County Superior Court judge and obtained a warrant and searched Bauman’s office on June 20.

Bauman faces a possible gross misdemeanor charge for the offense, but it’s not clear whether charges will be filed.

Prosecutor Shawn Sant said he’s asked the Snohomish County Prosecutor’s Office to review the case since his office would have a conflict of interest.

Already, Snohomish County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Elise Deschenes is reviewing potential criminal cases against Franklin County’s other two commissioners, Rocky Mullen, Clint Didier, and county Auditor Matt Beaton.

Bauman declined last week to discuss the accusations with the Tri-City Herald, but in public documents, videos and emails obtained by the Herald, he accuses the sheriff of threatening, intimidating and trying to bully him and other employees to get the key to the office.

He also claimed Raymond has a “personal vendetta against officials of this county.”

Under the a Washington State Public Records Act, the Herald obtained a 71-page investigative report and 17 minutes of body camera footage from the sheriff’s department search of Bauman’s office.

In the video, Bauman accuses Sheriff Raymond of weaponizing the sheriff’s office against the county’s elected officials.

Bauman is a businessman and developer and a prominent member of the Franklin County Republican Party. He was picked to replace former Commissioner Brad Peck in early January.

Bauman filed to remain in the position and his name is on the Aug. 6 primary ballot.

Courthouse security

Raymond told the Herald that the Superior and District Court judges made the sheriff’s office responsible for courthouse security in 2008.

The facility not only holds county government offices, but also houses the courtrooms, giving the judges a say in how security is handled.

The sheriff’s authority was further codified in a 2017 ordinance passed by county commissioners, which said the sheriff’s office is responsible for responding to emergencies in the building.

“This includes searching the premises for occupants needing rescue in addition to the general duties of stabilizing an emergency,” Raymond wrote in his search warrant application.

As part of that process, the sheriff’s office has access to master keys for all of the offices in the courthouse.

The keys are placed in locked boxes in the courthouse. The system allows firefighters and law enforcement access to the keys at any time.

This is not just a hypothetical situation, Raymond argued.

When the county was once the target of a weekend cyberattack that started with a computer in an elected official’s office, the county’s IT personnel needed immediate access to the computer.

Raymond noted that no one is walking around carrying a copy of the master key. It’s kept in the lock boxes.

“The sheriff’s office hasn’t done anything different than any other city or county,” said the sheriff.

Increasing ‘paranoia’

In Raymond’s written investigative report he claims Bauman has become increasingly suspicious.

“I was recently notified that the commissioner was accusing the county administrator of secretly recording him within his office,” Raymond wrote in his report to the prosecutor.

“Apparently, he demanded that the administrator disclose where the recording devices were hidden in his office. I was also informed that Commissioner Bauman removed all the ceiling tiles from his office, placed them on his desk and searched the office rafters to find hidden recording devices,” he wrote.

On June 12, Raymond left a computer printout of a biography of a state legislator on Bauman’s chair when the office door was open and Bauman wasn’t there.

Later that day, Raymond told Bauman that he left the information in his office, but the next day the commissioner called Raymond, demanding to know how he got into his office.

“I reminded him that no one had unlocked his office or gained illegal entry. I started to explain to him that all offices on this campus were master keyed for critical incidents,” Raymond wrote in the report. “The commissioner responded by stating that this was not applicable to his office anymore. He then slammed the phone down.”

That’s when Raymond said he realized Bauman had taken the lock out of his door, installed a new one and had the only keys.

Raymond said he went to Bauman’s office to talk about it. Raymond admitted he started the conversation “by telling him that he needed to control his paranoia.”

The sheriff said he tried to explain that they need a key for emergency access.

“After I made that comment, he asked me if I was threatening him and then got up to leave,” Raymond wrote. “Following that, he said, ‘If you need in my office, you can ‘kick the door in.’’”

“After I made those comments, the commissioner accused me of violating his rights, being a bully and an intimidator,” Raymond wrote.

“He even came up to me, getting in my face and asked if I was going to arrest him. If not, then to move (out of his doorway),” he wrote.

Back and forth

This first interaction led to a series of back and forth emails and messages that involved Raymond, Bauman, then County Administrator Mike Gonzalez and Jennifer Wagner, the county’s facilities manager.

Gonzalez sent a message to Wagner on June 14 and copied Bauman, saying they “really need” to get the keys over to the sheriff’s office.

“This is a critical law enforcement issue,” Gonzalez wrote. “Please get those to them as fast as humanly possible.”

Bauman refused. Instead, he insisted on knowing what law required emergency crews to be able to access his office.

Then, there was a text message exchange between Bauman and Gonzalez, which Gonzalez forwarded to the sheriff.

“Mike (Gonzalez), you need to answer me right now,” said Bauman.

Gonzalez texted back that he and Wagner could be arrested for preventing Raymond from getting a key for the lock. Gonzalez told Bauman he was certain a judge would approve a court order.

“My advice is to have Jennifer make the key ASAP. That’s all I really can communicate to you at this point,” Gonzalez said in his text message.

Bauman responded that he didn’t think that could happen since they didn’t have a key.

“My perception is if we don’t take steps to get that key to them we can face charges potentially,” said Gonzalez. “That’s why I think you should call (the) sheriff because you’re the only one with a key at this point.”

Gonzalez also asked Wagner in a June 14 email to produce a copy of the key for the sheriff.

It’s unclear when the conversation happened, but while the search warrant was being served Bauman said that he spoke with Undersheriff Monty Huber and said he would provide the keys if he was shown the legal authority for them.

Emailed accusations

The other documented conversation about the key came in an email thread that included Wagner, Bauman, Raymond and Sant.

The thread starts with Gonzalez’s message to Wagner about the keys, and then includes a June 14 email from Raymond to Sant. In the message, Raymond pointed out that Bauman was “blatantly obstructing law enforcement operations and courthouse personal the public safety.”

“One has to ask what is the commissioner hiding within this public owned office space, which he seemed to view as his personal property,” Raymond wrote.

Raymond said he was going to seek a court order to get the keys and asked Sant to assign to deputy prosecutor to help with the search warrant.

“I am the one that has the keys and you don’t have the decency to even ask for one,” Bauman wrote to Raymond. “You are no more interested (in) my safety in that office. .... You are only interested in control. How you believe entering my closed office is OK, I have no idea.”

He also accused the sheriff of being “a shame to the office” that he holds.

Raymond shot back an email an hour later saying the commissioner’s “paranoia and stupidity has gone far enough.”

“Unfortunately, it appears you have drank the ‘Kool-Aid,’” the sheriff said. “Shame on you for thinking you hold all these powers, which you don’t. You simply are one of three legislative members of a county government.”

Sant stepped in on the last message, saying that any request for a key should go directly to Bauman. He explained to Raymond that he believed his office likely did have authority over court security, but he was working to find the exact laws or county codes.

Commission office search

The sheriff then asked Superior Court Judge Jackie Shea-Brown to approve a search warrant for the lock and the keys. She signed off on it on June 20.

Franklin County deputies Jack Dodson, Mike Schwalbach and Ramona Bolanos went to Bauman’s office shortly before 10 a.m. on June 20 to serve the warrant.

The entire 17-minute search was recorded by their body cameras and was provided to the Tri-City Herald as part of a public records request.

Bauman met the deputies outside of his office door, took the warrant, sat down and began reading it. After a minute, he asked questions about what he was being accused of and what exactly the deputies were searching for.

“It says obstructing, but obstructing what? In what way has an obstruction happened?” asked Bauman.

“Basically, what I’m here to do, is to serve this warrant,” Dodson replied. “I’m not part of the investigation. This tells you that I’m commanded to arrive here and seize the following item.”

Dodson also explained that he wasn’t interested in searching the entire office. He was only looking for the keys and the lock.

Bauman asked the commissioner office staff to take the detectives’ names and badge numbers.

As Bauman is looking up the state law for obstruction, he tells Dodson that he’s “sorry the sheriff is bringing you into this. It makes me sad.”

After reading out the law, which included impeding access to security and emergency personnel, Bauman says that he’s not aware of anything that he did to violate the law. He asked the detective to provide him some additional information.

Dodson responded by saying for a second time, that he was not part of the investigation. After Bauman asks several other questions, the detective suggests that he comply with the warrant and then talk to a lawyer or seek other legal advice.

“I have been. I’ve been talking to Shawn (Sant) in the last few minutes and the clerk and trying to understand this,” Bauman said. “I was told by the undersheriff that if there were to be actions taken that you guys would talk to me, and I said, ‘If there is a law, something that you can provide me, I’m happy to comply.”

Dodson explained again that he was there to serve a search warrant and that was all he was doing.

After about six minutes of discussion, Bauman turned over the key.

The detectives took photos and provided him with a receipt. As they were finishing, Bauman apologized to the detectives again.

“I’m so sorry that the sheriff is bringing you into his personal vendetta against officials of this county,” he said. “I feel bad for you guys.”

He also asked to know who he could contact to file a criminal complaint against the sheriff for previously not letting him leave his office.