This was originally posted on KDKD’s Letters to the Editor
By Michael Rosiere
On July 31, 2026, just four days before the August 4 primary, Southside Commissioner Jake Bradley sent an email from his official Henry County email account concerning the controversial Chapter 100 solar agreement.
The recipients included my opponents in the presiding commissioner race, Beth Wilson, and Clay Radford of KDKD (a media outlet). I was not included, and I did not receive the material from Bradley. I obtained this email sent by Commissioner Bradley just recently through a Sunshine Law Request for documents.
The subject was “chapter 100 case.”
Bradley described the material as “a statement of opinions from the expert witness for the firm Gilmore and Bell.” He explained that the commission, its attorney, and Beavertail’s attorneys believed the information should be released to the public.
Then he stated its intended value:
“It helps show that the commission at the time was acting in good faith and was trying to get the best deal for the county.”
That assertion addressed a central issue in my campaign: whether county officials had adequately protected the public’s interests in the solar agreement.
Throughout my campaign, I made clear that I believed the Chapter 100 agreement was a bad deal for Henry County and that, if elected presiding commissioner, I intended to revisit it. The document Bradley circulated defended the agreement and supported my primary opponent’s position that it was a good deal.
In my view, Bradley cherry-picked one favorable document to send directly to KDKD immediately before a closely contested election. Until then, he had refused to release any documents concerning the ongoing litigation about the Chapter 100, citing the ongoing court case.
Bradley also had copies of all three commissioners’ deposition transcripts, which he declined to release. In my view, those sworn accounts painted a substantially different picture and challenged the favorable portrayal offered by the expert opinion he wanted publicized.
Releasing the favorable opinion while withholding the depositions left readers without important context for evaluating his claim that the commission had acted in good faith.
Why did the stated restriction suddenly change?
At the end of the August 4 commission meeting, I questioned Bradley directly. He had repeatedly told me that documents concerning the Chapter 100 litigation could not be released because, as he put it, “We can’t while litigation continues.” I asked why he had now released this particular document and emailed it directly to the media.
Bradley said, “I don’t know. I woke up Friday morning and just decided to send it to them.”
I then asked whether, during his time as commissioner, he had ever emailed a document directly to KDKD or another media outlet before.
His response was, “No, I guess I never have.”
When I asked, “Why now?” he replied, “I don’t know.”
Those answers did not explain why the restriction he had previously cited no longer applied to this particular document four days before the election.
At the time of that conversation, I did not yet know he had also sent it to my political opponents and Beth Wilson.
The recipients and relationships deserve scrutiny.
My understanding is that Bradley’s son recently married into Beth Wilson’s family, and that members of that family have contracts with Beavertail Solar/Ranger Power and stand to benefit financially from the solar project.
That relationship does not, by itself, establish wrongdoing. It does provide relevant context for understanding the recipient list.
Those benefiting financially from the agreement had an interest in seeing it remain in place. In my view, they—and others who opposed my candidacy—would have welcomed material that defended the agreement and could undermine my campaign.
The email does not establish what Bradley privately intended. However, its timing, recipient list, and express defense of the commission raise a serious concern about political favoritism in official communications.
If the purpose was public education, why send the information to my opponents while leaving me out?
If the purpose was transparency, why release the material that defended the agreement while withholding testimony that could lead readers to question it?
Was Bradley speaking for all three commissioners?
KDKD told me it believed all three commissioners were aware that Bradley intended to send the material directly to the station. KDKD also indicated that it published the opinion believing that was what all three commissioners wanted so I do not fault KDKD for presenting information that was sent by a public official who had inferred that it was on behalf of the County.
Based on the information available to me, that understanding was incorrect: not all three commissioners knew beforehand that Bradley intended to send it directly to KDKD.
That distinction matters. Bradley’s email referred to “the commission,” language that could reasonably suggest a shared decision.
Commissioner Bradley had every right to disagree with me, defend the agreement, and explain his position. Residents have every right to question how he used his public office to distribute that defense immediately before an election.
Receiving the email does not establish wrongdoing by any recipient, nor does it prove that the material changed the election’s outcome. But in a race decided by a margin of just 234 votes, the selective release of information favorable to my opponents deserves serious scrutiny.
My criticism concerns the judgment of the public official who selected what to release, when to release it, and who would receive it.
A county email account carries the authority of public office. When a commissioner uses that account to circulate material bearing directly on a contested campaign issue, fairness and transparency matter.
Regardless of whom we supported in the primary, we should expect elected officials to share public information openly and evenhandedly. A candidate’s criticism of county leadership should never become a reason to exclude that candidate from official communications shared with his opponents.
Public office belongs to the people. Its credibility depends on serving them fairly—even when they disagree with the officials holding it. The authority and resources entrusted to an elected official should never be used to give favored candidates an advantage over their opponents.
A central theme of my campaign was the need for greater transparency and fairness in county government. The selective sharing of this information just four days before the election raised concerns for me about whether established political relationships were influencing official communications. It reflected the kind of uneven access to information I had hoped to change.
Michael Rosiere
Henry County, Missouri