By Katie Northcott, News Director
Manchester Alderman Julie Anderson’s motion to engage the Tennessee Comptroller’s Office of Open Records Counsel to mediate an ongoing dispute between Manchester city officials and a Coffee County resident failed at a Board of Mayor and Aldermen (BOMA) meeting on Tuesday.
Anderson made the motion after Coffee County resident Sarah Bradley made a public comment at the same meeting, alleging that the city had failed to fulfill her records requests after threatening a lawsuit against her for voluminous records requests.
“I think it’s expensive for us to use the city attorney to sit with Ms. Bradley to negotiate what records are available when the comptroller is available for free, and they also specialize in this,” Anderson said.
Anderson said that “personal animus” should be removed from the situation which she believed had “become charged”.
“Personally, I think Ms. Bradley is owed an apology by the city,” Anderson said.
Manchester Mayor Joey Hobbs disagreed with Anderson and expressed his distaste for Bradley throughout the meeting, refusing to allow her to answer a question directed to her by Alderman Donny Parsley and directing remarks toward Bradley throughout the meeting.
In her public comment, Bradley asked that the BOMA engage the Office of Open Records Counsel to mediate the matter. She also expressed concerns about perceived hostility toward her by city employees.
“It is imperative that this body decide tonight to initiate mediation with the Office of Open Records Counsel within 48 hours, post any capital plans you may or may not have within 24 hours at the most, and seek a performance review from the comptroller to review ‘the city’s’ compliance with not only the public records act but also the open meetings act,” Bradley said. “Additionally, it is imperative that you hold disciplinary reviews for a small group of employees whose names, actions, and recorded statements will be provided to you via email in the near future.”
Anderson’s motion failed with a 2-3-0-1 vote (Anderson and Alderman James Threet in favor; Alderman Ryan French absent).
The investigation into filing an injunction against Bradley was initiated at the March 3 meeting of the BOMA.
At the March meeting, City Attorney Craig Johnson said that there is a state statute that allows for open records requests, but that the same statute sets limits on open records requests. He said that if those requests become “disruptive to government,” then the city can seek an injunction. Johnson later clarified that the city must prove that the individual making the requests intended to be disruptive.
“There’s a threshold once a person reaches so many requests in a twelve-month period that you have to go through this process that we’re going through,” Johnson said. “You have to warn them. That’s been done.”
At the same meeting, Anderson made a motion to postpone the BOMA’s vote on the item in order to first contact the Office of Open Records Counsel regarding the nuisance law and any existing case law that could inform the investigation.
Anderson’s motion at the March meeting failed 4-3 (Anderson, Threet, and Alderman Ryan French in favor). Mayor Joey Hobbs cast the tie-breaking vote. After Anderson’s motion failed, the BOMA went on to initiate an investigation into filing an injunction with a 4-2 vote (Anderson and Threet opposed).
Find reporting on the vote to begin the investigation here.
Bradley provided Peterson Media Group with an email chain between herself and Johnson that extends from January 2026 to June 2026. In the exchange, it appears that the dispute between the city and Bradley centers around a records request Bradley made on November 17, 2025, and then refused to pay for after she was told some records would be withheld due to security concerns.
In the exchange, it appears that Bradley eventually examined the records and has met with Johnson and/or other city officials multiple times to resolve the issue. However, Johnson and Bradley appear to have never come to a resolution regarding the threatened lawsuit.
In the final email provided by Bradley, which is dated June 15, Johnson says the following:
“First your newest request was sent in on a version of the Record Request Form that we are not familiar with and is not the official form that we require. Can you please submit your request using the unaltered form provided on our website? Once you have re-submitted, we can provide you with a cost estimate for this latest request. As per our protocol, we will ask you to accept the costs in writing before anything is printed.
“Second, the constant bantering back and forth with your self-serving edits to actual events is counterproductive. I have already told you what the City is willing to agree to and you have not given any indication of your willingness to compromise, so I don’t see how mediation would help. One day I think we are coming to a resolution, the next there is another issue you insist on rehashing. We facilitated your viewing of the results of your old request so that we could move forward, now it seems we are going backwards. As I have stated before, the City will continue to follow the state law regarding transparency and your requests, including best practices, if they meet the intentions of state law.
“As mentioned above, you have now sent in another record request which puts you at 5 again within the last twelve months with scores of records being requested and additional subparts and governmental directives. On behalf of the City of Manchester Records Custodian, we are once again informing you that your voluminous and repeated requests are disrupting government operations.”
Bradley responded with a four-paragraph email that concludes with the following paragraph:
“If you don’t see how mediation would help, feel that we are going backwards, and insist that my requests are intended to disrupt government operations rather than improve them, then legal action may, unfortunately, be the best course of action for your client. While I remain interested in and have faith in mediation through the Office of Open Records Counsel I am, as you know, unable to compel that process as a citizen. Whether your client prefers to attempt mediation or wants to immediately move to litigation I think we can all see that this matter is ripe for review. Please let me know which path “the City” chooses so that I may retain legal counsel should your client choose the latter.”
Peterson Media Group reached out to Hobbs and Johnson via email on July 8, asking when the investigation would conclude, how long these kinds of investigations typically take, and how many hours Johnson had spent on the matter since January. Johnson responded with the following statement:
“I can state that the investigation you are referring to, which was initiated by the vote of the Board of Mayor and Alderman after repeated warnings were issued to the subject, is still continuing after an unsuccessful attempt to negotiate with the subject of the investigation failed. As with any investigation, the City chooses to not comment further, until any final findings and/or subsequent action (if any) is taken.”
