Anderson City Council advances censure effort against council member Susie Baugh

The Anderson City Council voted Tuesday to draft a resolution that would censure — or formally rebuke — council member Susie Baugh over concerns regarding her involvement in a proposed youth behavioral health facility. Baugh pushed back firmly on the allegations, saying she’s done nothing wrong.

The discussion stemmed from issues previously raised by council members Darin Hale and Mike Gallagher, along with Vice Mayor Bonnie Simmons, that Baugh used her former title as mayor to solicit state funds for a proposed youth behavioral health facility in a way that they say misrepresented the city and was self-serving. 

The project, a proposal known as the Pathways to Leadership Campus, was brought forward by two entities, the Redding-based Family Dynamics Resource Center and Anderson Community, a local church led by Baugh’s husband, Les Baugh. It was provisionally awarded nearly $25 million in state behavioral health funds earlier this year before successfully soliciting a second provisional award of nearly $2 million in Shasta County opioid settlement funds. 

In order to receive the funds from the county, supervisors said the project would first need to receive approval from the Anderson City Council, the Anderson Police Department or the Shasta County sheriff and the head of the Shasta Probation Department. None of those entities have publicly indicated support for the project so far.

Over the weeks following the county board’s decision to provisionally fund the project, it came under scrutiny for a variety of reasons: among them, Susie Baugh’s use of her former title as mayor on grant documents along with an assertion in the document that the “project team has met multiple times with city planning, engineering, and fire officials,” something the city manager said never happened. 

In response, council members Hale and Gallagher, who had both reviewed grant application materials, released statements in public settings, including online, strongly opposing Baugh’s involvement in the project process.

Amid community concerns, Les Baugh announced in early April that the church would withdraw from the project. He was among those who spoke during the public comment period of this week’s meeting, saying he has filed legal claims against Hale and Gallagher for harming public opinion of the project before it could be formally considered by the council.

Both council members continued to oppose Baugh’s involvement in the project process this week, with Gallagher referring to the project as “stinky” and Hale describing the Baughs as having a “stranglehold” on the city. Hale told Susie Baugh that she should step down from her role on the council, explaining that if she doesn’t, he’ll support a citizen-led recall. 

Simmons also expressed significant concern again this week, saying Susie Baugh’s actions represent a conflict of interest given that her husband was the project’s manager, and the project was slated to receive up to $225,000 if it went through. 

“We’ve all sat through ethics training. There are clear government codes. It’s code 1090,” she said, noting a state law that forbids government officials from participating in decisions they would benefit from. 

“It is our responsibility to act ethically, it is our responsibility to preserve public trust, it is our duty to conduct ourselves with integrity and to place the public interest above our own personal gain,” Simmons added. “We must be transparent, we must communicate openly, and we must avoid any perception or actions that would erode their trust.”

Susie Baugh pushed back, saying her former title as mayor was used in the grant application by a grant writer without her authorization.

“I did not submit the grant application,” Baugh said. “I did not write the grant application. I did not review the grant application, and I did not sign the grant application.”

Baugh said she also communicated personally with Anderson City Manager Joey Forseth-Deshais throughout the planning process and informed him of the project scope, including its focus on youth services.

“I have done nothing wrong,” Susie Baugh said toward Hale. “I am completely innocent.” 

Nevertheless, Simmons made a motion to set up a special meeting for the council to consider the censure resolution, which passed 4-1, with Susie Baugh casting the lone dissenting vote. 

The censure resolution will be drafted by Simmons and Hale and will appear before the entire council for discussion and a vote. If the council votes to censure Susie Baugh, the agenda packet indicated, she could also be removed from the committees she’s on, which include the Shasta Local Agency Formation Commission, or LAFCO, and AT HOME Shasta. 

Family Dynamics has not yet made any public statements about whether the project will move forward without Anderson Community’s involvement and did not respond to a request for comment sent yesterday. 

California’s Department of Health Care Services, which administers Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program — known as BHCIP — funding, said in an email statement that the project’s award of nearly $25 million remains provisional, pending final evaluation for eligibility. 

Funding is contingent, spokesperson Tessa Outhyse wrote, on the state’s “in-depth verification of the grantee’s eligibility and use of bond funds, match amount and source(s), completion of award certification steps, clear title of property, final execution of the Program Funding Agreement, and fulfillment of all program requirements. 

“DHCS could rescind a conditional Bond BHCIP Round 2 award if a conditional grantee is unable to meet all program and eligibility requirements,” Outhyse wrote.

Correction notice 5.7.2026 4:37 p.m.: We have corrected this article to clarify that some council members’ opposition was to Baugh’s involvement in the process, not to the project itself.

---

Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.