Public accuses Henry County commissioner of withholding lawyer identity in solar project dispute; commissioner declines to name counsel
Loading...
Summary
A public commenter says Commissioner Jake Bradley refused four times to identify an attorney he consulted about Beavertail Solar and chapter 100 matters; Bradley said he was 'honoring the attorney's wishes.' The commenter said they will seek records from the Missouri attorney general.
A public commenter told the Henry County Commission on the record that Commissioner Jake Bradley had consulted an attorney about Chapter 100 and matters involving Beavertail Solar but repeatedly refused to disclose the attorney's identity in response to a Missouri Sunshine Law request.
The commenter said the request sought only the lawyer’s name and not legal advice, and that Bradley twice refused and later told them he was "complying with the attorney's wishes to remain unnamed." The commenter said that response undermines the Sunshine Law’s purpose and announced plans to seek records and report the matter to the Missouri attorney general unless the identity is disclosed.
"When an elected official says their decisions were influenced by a lawyer but refuses to identify the lawyer, it naturally raises questions," the commenter said on the record, urging the commission to support disclosure. The commenter added they would file a records request for phone logs and other evidence of the consultation.
Commissioner Jake Bradley responded directly in the meeting, saying he was "honoring his wishes" and that he did not feel he had done anything wrong. "If you want the number to the attorney general, I'll get it for you," Bradley said, and added he would comply if told by a legal authority that disclosure were required.
Other commissioners debated whether the attorney’s identity is automatically public. One commissioner said they would disclose any attorney they consulted and characterized disclosure of identity as a matter of transparency and character. Another commissioner cautioned about client privilege and noted Bradley said he had no written record or email documenting the consultation.
The public commenter reiterated that the Sunshine Law covers public business and that simply avoiding written records would not exempt an official from disclosure obligations. The commenter said the next step would be a formal records request and, if necessary, referral to the Missouri attorney general.
The meeting record shows the allegation and Bradley’s reply but does not include subsequent formal requests, legal determinations, or a vote by the commission on whether to disclose the attorney’s identity.
What’s next: the commenter stated intent to file a Sunshine Law request for phone records related to the meeting and may refer the matter to the Missouri attorney general. The commission did not announce any immediate formal action or vote on the disclosure during the meeting.
