Anderson City Council Advances Censure Process Against Councilmember Susie Baugh
- Kari Chilson
- 2 days ago
- 4 min read
ANDERSON, Calif. — The Anderson City Council on Wednesday night advanced a formal censure process against Councilmember Susie Baugh following intense public comment and council debate over allegations that she misrepresented the city in connection with a proposed $24.7 million youth behavioral health treatment facility.
The agenda item, titled “Discussion on Censure of Councilmember Baugh,” directed the council to (1) discuss a staff report, (2) receive public comment, (3) determine whether sufficient grounds existed to pursue censure, and (4) if so, designate a Councilmember to prepare a proposed Resolution of Censure for consideration at a future meeting.
Public comment was overwhelmingly critical. Multiple speakers demanded Baugh’s resignation or immediate censure, citing an alleged conflict of interest involving her husband, Pastor Les Baugh, and the nonprofit Anderson Community (also referred to as Anderson Community Church or Family Dynamics Resource Center). The project, known as the Pathways to Leadership Campus, was to have been located on church property at 2364 Balls Ferry Road. It was withdrawn after significant community opposition.
Several residents accused Baugh of using her position as mayor (at the time of early project discussions) to lend the appearance of official city support while the project benefited a private organization tied to her family. Speakers alleged that the grant application improperly listed her title as “Mayor Susie Baugh,” created confusion between city and private interests, and lacked early transparency with the full council and city staff. One longtime resident called the actions “unethical behavior” that caused “loss of credibility, loss of confidence, and a loss of our respect.” Others described it as a “blatant misuse of authority” and a violation of government ethics codes, including Government Code 1090 regarding conflicts of interest and personal financial gain.
Clarification on Conflict of Interest:
Even though the Baughs may not receive direct personal payments from the grant, a potential conflict of interest arises under California law (primarily Government Code §1090) because Susie Baugh serves as Secretary of Anderson Community Inc., the nonprofit church organization led by her husband, Pastor Les Baugh, as President. The proposed youth campus was to be built on the church’s property at 2364 Balls Ferry Road, with the organization donating/leasing the land for 30 years and serving as a formal project partner.
Critics argue that this created an indirect financial and organizational benefit to the entity that the Baughs control. At the same time, Susie participated in related discussions in her capacity as a city official and former mayor. Susie denies any wrongdoing.
Public comments also included sharp personal criticisms of the Baughs, with some alleging broader misconduct by the pastor involving church finances and property. One speaker stated she had an additional complaint to submit to the council and claimed to have contacted the FBI. Several residents expressed feeling “bamboozled” or that public trust in the city government had been damaged. A few speakers, while opposing the project on its merits, focused on process failures and the need for early city involvement.
Council discussion reflected deep divisions. Councilmember Darren Hale and others argued there was an “obvious lack of transparency” and a clear conflict of interest because Baugh had signed documents in her official capacity as Major while serving as financial officer of the LLC that stood to receive significant long-term financial benefits. Hale stated he was “done with the Baugh stranglehold on this community” and supported censure. Councilmember Michael Gallagher echoed concerns about misrepresentation and the erosion of public trust, noting the council’s duty to place the public interest above personal interests.
Councilmember Baugh defended her actions vigorously. She stated she did not submit, write, review, or sign the grant application; that she declined to provide a city letter of support on official letterhead; and that any reference to her as “Mayor” in the application was an unauthorized error later corrected by the grant writer. She provided a detailed timeline of communications with City Manager Joey Forseth-Deshay beginning in October 2025, asserting she kept the city informed and that the project was never hidden. Baugh emphasized that the $24.7 million grant (with a potential long-term impact of up to $300 million over 30 years) went entirely to Family Dynamics Resource Center, not to her personally, and that Anderson Community was donating the property for 30 years at no cost. She described the project as a “beautiful” effort to help youth in crisis with mental health and substance use treatment, accused some colleagues of fear-mongering and prejudging the project before it could be heard, and expressed disappointment in the handling of the matter.
Despite her defense, the council moved forward. After discussion of due process requirements (including the need for a written resolution detailing specific misconduct and an opportunity for Baugh to respond), the council voted to designate one or more members to prepare a proposed Resolution of Censure. Councilmember Hale indicated he would help draft it. The council also approved a special meeting—likely in the coming days or next week—to consider and vote on the resolution rather than waiting for the next regular meeting at the end of May. The motion passed by a majority; Baugh cast the sole “no” vote.
The censure process does not remove Baugh from office. Under California law, elected councilmembers cannot be removed by their colleagues; removal would require a recall election by voters. A censure serves as a formal public reprimand expressing the council’s disapproval of the member’s conduct.
The meeting highlighted ongoing tensions in Anderson over transparency, ethics, and the balance between private nonprofit initiatives and public governance. The proposed youth facility drew strong opposition from residents concerned about its location, scope, and oversight, ultimately leading the applicants to withdraw it.
The special meeting date will be announced publicly once finalized by city staff.
The meeting can be seen on the City of Anderson's Facebook page:
