SACRAMENTO — Perhaps Orange County Supervisor Todd Spitzer ought to consider writing a check for $121,396 to reimburse county taxpayers for fees the county incurred in fighting the release of public records related to the well-known “Wahoo’s incident.” He probably should pay more, given the county time and resources used to deal with an embarrassing matter that was essentially personal in nature, but the $121K should suffice.

Spitzer was eating at the taco restaurant on Good Friday in 2015. Apparently missing the gist of the day’s sermon (love your neighbor, etc.), Spitzer dealt with a persistent evangelist who approached him at the restaurant by calling the cops — and then grabbing a loaded gun and handcuffing the guy until they arrived. Spitzer, a former Los Angeles reserve police officer, alleges the man eyed a knife on a table. Spitzer said he feared for his safety, so he made a citizen’s arrest.

Spitzer later contacted the county spokesperson for advice about a statement he wanted to release about the incident. The draft was a meandering mess, offering insight into the thoughts of a man who wants to be district attorney. County officials chose secrecy, as they fought the release of records. The judge rejected some of the Voice of OC’s request, but released the statement-related correspondence and then required the county to pay legal fees.

The judge found that “the respondent (county) has not carried its burden of showing that the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.” That ruling was good news for the cause of open government, even if the county has to foot the bill.

Once Spitzer contacted county staff to offer advice on a statement, the correspondence understandably became the county’s — and the public’s — business. The county’s argument that the records were exempt from release under the “deliberative process privilege” was wrong. One supervisor was debating a statement about a matter with staff. This privilege is designed to allow supervisors to candidly discuss policy matters, and didn’t seem to apply here. The privilege too often is used by officials to dodge legitimate records requests.

My question is more basic than the one about the privilege and release of county documents: Why did Spitzer include the county in the first place? If I get into a scuffle at a restaurant on a holiday, why should my employer be pulled into the fray?

The county sidestepped my question. It sent me a statement about why it fought the release of records, but never explained why this was ever the public’s business. Spitzer explained via text message that the statement involved the county because he was using it as a means to deal with a broader public policy issue.

That’s not an unreasonable point, but the draft statement itself was largely about justifying Spitzer’s action at the restaurant. Ultimately, Spitzer released a more measured statement, in which he explained that a county public information officer “advised me that certain statements in the document could expose the county to legal liability,” and that, “based in part on her professional advice, I decided not to continue with the opinion piece.”

Spitzer ultimately chose the right course of action by spiking the statement, but, again, why bring in the county? Why expose taxpayers to costs and potential liabilities for what ultimately seemed like a non-county matter?

“I am OK with asking her opinion because her job is PR and she can give that kind of advice, even if the incident seems non-county related,” said Chapman University law professor Mario Mainero, who also has been considering a run for district attorney. “It just isn’t privileged.”

“It’s a legitimate question as to why the county got involved in issuing a statement,” said Jim Ewert, general counsel of the California Newspaper Publishers Association. “To the extent that the county has a dog in the hunt … maybe it is appropriate.”

David Snyder, executive director of the San Rafael-based First Amendment Coalition, thought Spitzer’s use of the county staff here was legitimate, even on a largely personal matter, because he’s a supervisor and news coverage of it would ultimately involve the county. He argues that the Orange County Board of Supervisors could have told Spitzer that he’s on his own in the matter.

So maybe I need to slightly adjust my position here. Perhaps the four other county supervisors ought to reach into their own pockets and help repay the county, also. It’s only fair. Frankly, I’m tired of taxpayers picking up the tab every time their elected officials or government employees do something foolish.

Steven Greenhut is a Sacramento-based journalist. He was a Register editorial writer from 1998 to 2009. Write to him at stevengreenhut@gmail.com