Original article posted here 11/08/2025

Subscribe now

An Illegal Weapons Ban in the Administrative Offices of Jerome County

It Was Illegal and They Knew It!

In government, intent matters. When officials disguise civil rights violations as “security” they cross the line from governance into manipulation and misconduct. That line was crossed in Jerome County, Idaho, in 2025.

A review of county meeting minutes reveals a clear progression:
from discussions ►► to actions before the decision ►► to an illegal decision ►► to the gaslighting that followed.

As commissioners, the clerk, the sheriff, and county counsel steadily built the justification for an illegal weapons ban in a public building they knew could not legally qualify as a courthouse.

Not a Mistake

Jerome County’s brief 2025 weapons ban was not a harmless misunderstanding. The record shows a progression of intent, awareness, contradiction, and an absence of accountability.

The county knew its building did not qualify as a courthouse, yet moved forward under the banner of “security” and “legal advice.” When confronted, it claimed ignorance and miscommunication - on a core constitutional issue.

Every official involved had access to the same information:

• the Idaho Supreme Court’s guidance

• the clear language of Idaho Code § 18-3302J

• the limits of county authority

• a warning from a neighboring sheriff

• a warning from County Assessor Mark Swenson

The Jerome County commissioners proceeded in spite of those facts, in deliberate disregard of both law and liberty. Such conduct demands public accountability.

When officials knowingly act outside the law, they should resign or be removed from office. Citizens have a right to expect that their leaders will respect both the law and the truth. The facts are documented in the public record: the elected and appointed officials ignored the law, ignored the rights of their constituents, and have done nothing since to suggest their motives or behavior have changed. Recently, Charlie Howell bluntly denied these violations in a since-deleted post.

The Timeline

• March 17, 2025 – Security Cameras Proposed. McGregor returned to propose security cameras for the Administration Offices, referencing a 2023 quote and recommending an upgrade. The commissioners agreed. This was the earliest step in converting the Administration Offices into a monitored, restricted facility, predating the "security" discussion by nearly a month.

• April 14, 2025 – The Security Plan Originates. Clerk Cy Lootens and Sheriff George Oppedyk proposed installing a metal detector, bag scanner, and two security officers at the new Administration Offices Building. Oppedyk told the board the building should have "a no-weapon policy since it is an emergency location for a jury to meet." He recommended adding lockboxes for knives and closing all but one public entrance.
  
  The commissioners agreed. This meeting appears to be the first mention of a weapons restriction in 2025, months before the September vote. It also introduced the false justification of a "jury emergency" which later evolved into the "emergency courtroom" claim. The entire plan — from the no-weapon policy to the installation of courthouse equipment — was approved in principle during this meeting.

  

• May 12, 2025 – Judicial Complex Remodel. Clerk Cy Lootens requested funding to remodel the Judicial Complex clerk’s office. This confirmed that court functions remained confined to the courthouse, not the Administration Offices. Officials knew or should have known precisely which facility was legally recognized for courtroom use.

• June 9, 2025 – Security Introduced as Policy. Commissioner Art Watkins reported attending a statewide clerks’ conference where one session covered “security of county buildings.” Later in that meeting, the board discussed a trip-and-fall safety incident outside the Administration Offices. Safety and liability concerns now merged into the administrative vocabulary of “security.”

• June 30, 2025 – Security Deputies Budgeted. Chief Deputy Clerk Tracee McKim requested funding for two full-time sheriff’s deputies assigned to security. The proposal was approved. This appears to be the first fiscal act creating an armed security presence in a non-judicial county building.

• July 7, 2025 – Security Plan Formalized. At a Department Head Luncheon, Sheriff Oppedyk and the commissioners proposed two deputies on site daily, one public entrance, and a metal detector. Staff agreed this was necessary to “make employees feel safe.” This was the first formal statement of the plan in operational terms: daily armed security, controlled access, and scanning equipment.

• July 14, 2025 – Remodel and Safety Upgrades. Commissioner Ben Crouch reported ongoing remodeling and inspections at the Administration Offices, apparently laying the physical groundwork for restricted entry.

• August 25, 2025 – Security Area Approved. Clerk Cy Lootens and Facilities Manager Brent Culbertson requested approval for a “new security area.” The minutes note that “security personnel had already come and measured for the new machine.” The board approved construction changes and $8,728 for a metal detector and X-ray repair. This was formal financial authorization in 2025 for courthouse-style screening in a building that was not legally a courthouse.

• September 8, 2025 – Security Marketed as Public Benefit. At the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Administration Offices, Commissioner Ben Crouch told attendees the new measures would “provide a safer space for all employees and members of the community.” Security, once administrative jargon, was now public-relations language.

• September 22, 2025 – The “Emergency Courtroom” Discussion. During a regular Board of Commissioners meeting, County Clerk Cy Lootens raised the idea of designating a room inside the new Jerome County Administration Offices as an “emergency courtroom.” According to the minutes, Lootens told the board he had already spoken with the Idaho Supreme Court, which informed him the proposal was not legally permissible unless court was held there every day.

  That clarification should have settled the question. The state's highest judicial authority made it clear that the administration building was not a courtroom under Idaho law. The discussion then turned again to "building security" with Lootens suggesting the county "enact security measures" to prevent issues.
  
  Commissioners Ben Crouch, Charles Howell, and Art Watkins agreed to move forward with those security steps. While weapons were not directly mentioned in the minutes, later events revealed that "security" meant restricting weapons.

• September 29, 2025 – The Weapons Ban Announcement. One week later, during a meeting at 4:35 p.m., the Jerome County Board of Commissioners voted to prohibit the public from bringing weapons into the Jerome Administration Offices building.
  
  The motion was made by Commissioner Watkins and seconded by Chairman Crouch. It passed unanimously, to take effect October 1, 2025. The stated justification was "in light of recent events and in the purpose of protecting employees." What events Watkins is referring to is not clear!
  
  The minutes show that this action occurred during a section euphemistically titled "Security Discussion" following conversations about key card access, after-hours entry, and IT badge controls. There was no clear public notice, legal memorandum, or open hearing before the vote.
  
  During an interview with host Bill Colley, Commissioner Ben Crouch acknowledged that the building in question was no longer functioning as a courthouse, stating, “we knew it wasn’t still a courthouse.” He went on to explain that, according to legal counsel, “you have the right, the opportunity, the authority, the responsibility to take care of our employees.” This is incompetent and dangerous legal counsel.

• September 29, 2025 (continued) Colley, apparently attempting to provide cover, responded, “it makes it clear that courthouses can do this but…but I guess so it’s going to come back to the definition of courthouse.” Rather than broaden that definition, Crouch reiterated that the justification for the weapons ban was employee safety. The ban, he said, was enacted “for security reasons,” though he conceded when pressed that there had been “not so much threats, but incidents that…made us pause,” and confirmed that there were “no threats.”
  
  Crouch also suggested that employees might eventually be permitted to carry firearms under certain conditions, stating, “we have the intention of letting people [employees] do that…trained through the sheriff.”

• October 6, 2025 – The Ban Is Repealed. At the next meeting, the commissioners met with County Attorney Mike Seib to review their decision. According to the record, the board stated that they believed legal counsel had told them the restriction was permissible. Seib clarified that the decision “went further than he thought initially to weapons.”
  
  The commissioners then acknowledged they may have misunderstood the legal limits and voted unanimously to repeal the ban, apologizing and stating they wanted to fix their mistake and explore other security options.
  

  Let that soak in — the minutes show that the board believed they had acted on Seib’s advice, while Seib distanced himself from the decision. The contradiction is clear:

  • Jerome County officials were told on September 22 by the Idaho Supreme Court that the administration building could not be classified as a courtroom.

  • Sources now tell me that a neighboring sheriff tried to warn the BOCC.

  • County Assessor Mark Swenson issued a written statement opposing the ban on legal, moral, and ethical grounds.

  • On October 6, they were told by their own attorney that the ban exceeded their authority.

  

Legal Implications - Idaho Code § 18-3302

Under Idaho Code § 18-3302J, counties are expressly prohibited from creating or enforcing local rules that restrict the possession or carrying of firearms. Proceeding with a ban after receiving notice that the building was not a legally recognized courtroom suggests a willful disregard of state law.

The reliance on “legal counsel” does not excuse the act if that advice contradicted both statute and the Idaho Supreme Court’s prior clarification. If counsel did advise adoption of the ban, that advice itself warrants review. If, on the other hand, the commissioners misrepresented the scope or intent of counsel’s guidance, the ethical fault lies squarely with the board.

The apparent misuse of “emergency” and “public-safety” language throughout 2025 reveals a pattern of administrative opportunism, not isolated error.

Beyond state statute, the county’s actions also raise questions under federal civil-rights law

This is the end of the clear and factual record. For any reasonable individual, this is enough to conclude these individuals should be removed from office immediately. But there is more; Clear violations of state & federal law and the ethical implications for allowing them to remain.

Violating Federal & State Law and Public Trust

Under 18 U.S.C. § 242 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, officials act “under color of law” when they use government authority to deprive someone of a constitutional right. In this case, that right would be the Second Amendment, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

For a federal violation to exist, the action must (1) be done under color of law, (2) deprive a person of a constitutional right, and (3) be willful. The Jerome County ban clearly meets the first criterion, as it was enacted through an official vote. It also meets the second in principle, because it sought to restrict lawful firearm possession by citizens entering a public building not covered by any legal exception. The difficult question is whether the commissioners’ conduct satisfies the third—willfulness.

Because the county rescinded the ban within days, claimed legal misunderstanding, and apparently did not enforce the policy against anyone, it would likely not meet the threshold for criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 242. There is no record of arrests, removals, or denials of access to the building during the week the ban was active.

However, if any citizen was denied entry, ordered to disarm, or threatened with removal, that individual could pursue a civil claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging deprivation of Second Amendment rights under color of law. Even without enforcement, the policy itself created a chilling effect on lawful carry, which courts recognize as a form of constitutional injury.

Thus, while the Jerome County ban may not constitute a prosecutable federal offense, it was still an official act taken under color of law that sought to restrict constitutionally protected behavior. That places it squarely within the framework of civil-rights scrutiny, even if no federal prosecution follows.

Ethical Implications

Ethically, the issue is not limited to the brief existence of a weapons ban. It is about transparency, honesty, and the duty of elected officials to act within the law they swear to uphold. The sequence of events indicates that at least some Jerome County officials had knowledge of their limitations but advanced the ban anyway, then attempted to justify it afterward as a misunderstanding or legal oversight.

Such behavior undermines public confidence and raises the question of whether “security” was used as a political shield to push through a policy the board already knew was questionable. Government cannot claim ignorance after receiving explicit clarification from the state’s highest court.

The Broader Concern

This incident illustrates how administrative language can be weaponized to expand local authority. By labeling a building an “emergency courtroom,” officials sought to create legal justification for a restriction they could not otherwise impose. If this approach had succeeded, it could have set a dangerous precedent for redefining spaces and powers to bypass state law.

If a county can reclassify an administrative room to justify a gun ban, what stops another jurisdiction from declaring an “emergency assembly zone” to limit protests, or an “emergency media area” to control press access? The principle is the same: manipulating form to seize power that law does not grant.

Transparency Issues

Questions that produce accountability

1. Who first proposed the “emergency jury room” and “emergency courtroom” designations, and for what purpose?

2. Who first authorized the April 14 weapons-restriction plan, and under what authority?

3. Did the county attorney explicitly advise that a weapons ban was lawful, or was this interpretation advanced by commissioners?

4. Did the board disclose to legal counsel that the Idaho Supreme Court had already said such a designation would not be valid?

5. Were any members of law enforcement consulted before the ban was announced?

6. Why did the commissioners state after repeal that they “did not realize they could not do it,” when the Supreme Court’s guidance had already been cited in public minutes?

7. What corrective measures will be taken to ensure accurate legal advice and full transparency in future public-safety policies?

8. How much public money was spent, and from which budget line?

Share

Related Articles

The Bill Colley Show Provides the Evidence

Misconduct on the Jerome Board of County Commissioners

Officials and Accountability

The following overview identifies each public official involved in Jerome County’s 2025 gun-ban episode, their position, whether the office was elected or appointed, the period of their documented involvement, and an assessment of whether they knew or should have known the action was unlawful under Idaho Code § 18-3302J and the Idaho Supreme Court’s September 22 clarification.

Ben Crouch – Chairman, Jerome County Board of Commissioners (Elected)

Active March 17 through October 6, 2025. Chaired meetings, seconded the September 29 motion establishing the weapons ban, and participated in its repeal. As chairman, Crouch had a duty to ensure the county acted within state law. He was present when the Idaho Supreme Court clarified that the Administration Offices could not legally be classified as a courtroom. By moving forward a week later, he appears to have known the action violated state preemption law.

Art Watkins – Commissioner, Jerome County Board of Commissioners (Elected)

Active March 17 through October 6, 2025. Made the motion to adopt the September 29 weapons ban and voted for its repeal. Watkins was present when the Idaho Supreme Court’s clarification was entered into the record. His motion to enact the restriction after that warning indicates he knew or should have known the county lacked authority to prohibit weapons in the building.

Charles Howell – Commissioner, Jerome County Board of Commissioners (Elected)

Active April 14 through October 6, 2025. Participated in the April 14 discussion introducing the no-weapons proposal, the September 22 “emergency courtroom” discussion, and the September 29 vote. Howell agreed to pursue “security measures” after being told the building could not legally be treated as a courtroom, and therefore should have known the policy would conflict with state law.

Mike Seib – Former Jerome County Prosecutor, currently an attorney with the Jerome County Prosecutor’s Office (Appointed)

Active October 6, 2025. Advised the board following enactment of the ban. Stated that the decision “went further than he thought initially to weapons.” This suggests incomplete communication but also a duty to have warned the board more clearly. Seib bore the greatest responsibility to have known that Idaho law prohibited such restrictions, yet he appears not to have explicitly authorized their implementation.

Cy Lootens – Jerome County Clerk (Elected)

Active April 14 through October 6, 2025. Originated the April 14 proposal for a weapons restriction, proposed the “emergency courtroom,” and personally contacted the Idaho Supreme Court. Lootens reported the Court’s clarification to the board, confirming the building’s non-courtroom status. Having received that direct guidance, he appears to have known that a weapons ban based on a courtroom designation had no legal foundation.

George Oppedyk – Jerome County Sheriff (Elected) -

Active April 14 through July 7, 2025. Co-presented the initial “security plan” recommending a no-weapons policy, metal detector, and daily armed security presence. Commissioner Ben Crouch later stated publicly that these recommendations came from the sheriff. As an elected law-enforcement officer, Oppedyk was presumed to be familiar with Idaho’s firearm preemption statute. His role in advancing a policy that exceeded the county’s legal authority suggests he may have known, or should have known, that the county lacked the power to impose such restrictions.

Tracee McKim – Chief Deputy Clerk (Appointed)

Active June 30, 2025. Requested funding for two full-time deputies for building security. Her involvement was administrative, not policy-making. There is no indication she participated in the ban or knew of its legal implications.

Brent Culbertson – Facilities Manager (Appointed)

Active August 25, 2025. Requested approval for construction of a “new security area” and purchase of screening equipment. His role was logistical, implementing board direction. He would not reasonably be expected to know the legal limitations surrounding firearm policy.

Summary

The elected officials—Crouch, Watkins, Howell, Lootens, and Oppedyk—were all aware of or informed about the Idaho Supreme Court’s clarification before the September 29 vote. Each either knew or reasonably should have known that the action exceeded the county’s legal authority. Appointed staff such as Seib, McKim, Culbertson, and McGregor acted in administrative or advisory capacities without independent policy-making power.

While intent cannot be proven without further evidence, the record establishes that the decision to enact the weapons ban occurred after explicit notice of its illegality, making the responsibility primarily one of elected leadership and judgment.

Idaho Supreme Court Clarification

According to the official Jerome County Board of Commissioners minutes dated September 22, 2025, County Clerk Cy Lootens informed the Board that he had spoken with the Idaho Supreme Court regarding the possibility of designating a room within the new Jerome County Administration Offices as an “emergency courtroom.” The Court, through its administrative staff, reportedly advised that such a designation was not legally permissible unless court was held there every day.

This statement, entered into the public record, defined the legal boundary for what constitutes a courtroom under Idaho law. The Idaho Supreme Court’s clarification meant that the Administration Offices could not be treated as a judicial facility for the purpose of implementing courthouse-style restrictions or security protocols. In Idaho, only locations formally recognized and regularly used for judicial proceedings qualify as courthouses or courtrooms.

Under the Idaho Court Administrative Rules (ICAR) and Idaho Code Title 1, Chapter 22, court facilities and security measures fall under the supervision of the Supreme Court and the Administrative Director of the Courts. Rule 32 of the ICAR specifies that court proceedings may only occur in facilities designated by the judiciary, and that security measures authorized for those spaces apply solely when a court is in lawful session. Temporary or “emergency” courtrooms must be formally approved and are subject to the same judicial oversight.

By confirming that the Administration Offices did not meet those conditions, the Idaho Supreme Court effectively informed the county that the building had no legal status as a courtroom or courthouse. Therefore, any attempt to restrict weapons under the guise of “court security” was outside the county’s lawful authority.

This clarification was unambiguous. From that date forward, Jerome County officials were on notice that the Administration Offices could not be reclassified to justify a gun ban. Their subsequent decision to proceed with the prohibition on September 29, 2025, seems to have been made in direct contradiction to that judicial guidance.

Share

Disclaimer:

This article is based on publicly available Jerome County Board of Commissioners meeting minutes and related news reports from September and October 2025. All quotations are taken directly from official records. The analysis and commentary that follow represent the author’s interpretation of those public documents and applicable law. Nothing in this article should be construed as a legal accusation, formal allegation of misconduct, or legal advice. Determinations of legality, ethics, or liability ultimately rest with appropriate judicial and oversight authorities. Readers are encouraged to review the original meeting minutes and Idaho Code § 18-3302J for independent verification.

Subscribe now

Review

Part 1: When Party Insiders Pick Your Sheriff: Are Those Meetings Open to the Public?

Part 2: Jerome County — The Pattern the Process Produced

---

Part 3: Even If the Law Didn't Require It: Why Closed Sheriff Interviews Are Ethically Indefensible

Assume for the sake of argument that every legal conclusion in this post is wrong. Assume that no court would ever hold the Jerome County Republican Central Committee subject to the Open Meeting Law. Assume the statute doesn’t reach them. Assume the legal argument fails entirely.

The closed interviews would still be wrong. Not technically wrong. Morally wrong. The kind of wrong that doesn’t require a statute to identify because it is visible to any person who thinks carefully about what is actually happening in that room and who will be affected by what comes out of it.

The sheriff is not a private employee

When a private company hires a manager in secret, that is their business. The people affected by that decision — customers, employees, competitors — have no claim on the process. The company owes them a good product or service, not a transparent hiring procedure.

The sheriff is not that. The sheriff of Jerome County has the legal authority to arrest you, detain you, search your home, seize your property, and use force against your body. Every resident of Jerome County lives under that authority whether they voted for the sheriff or not, whether they know who the sheriff is or not, whether they were born here or moved here last week.

That is not an employment relationship. That is a power relationship. And power relationships of that magnitude carry a different moral weight than private hiring decisions. The people over whom that power will be exercised have a legitimate moral interest — not just a legal one — in knowing who is being considered for the role, what they stand for, and how the decision is being made.

Closing that process to the public is not a personnel decision. It is an exercise of authority over the governed without their knowledge or participation. That is morally distinguishable from private hiring in kind, not just in degree.

Secret selection of someone with coercive power is a structural ethical violation

There is a reason every civilization that has developed concepts of justice has treated secret tribunals, star chambers, and closed proceedings as inherently suspect. It is not merely because secrecy is inconvenient. It is because secrecy removes accountability from the exercise of power — and unaccountable power over people is the root condition of tyranny, however modest its scale.

A committee that interviews candidates for sheriff in private, votes in private, and produces a result without public scrutiny is exercising power over the community it nominates someone to police — with no check, no record, no accountability for the judgment it applies. The committee members answer to no one for what happens in that room. Their biases, their personal relationships with candidates, their political debts, their business interests, their private agendas — none of it is visible. None of it can be challenged.

A closed room, no public record, no accountability — that is a star chamber for local law enforcement selection, whatever you call it procedurally.

The ethical problem is not what necessarily happens in that room. It is that there is no way to know what happens in that room. And when the person who emerges from that room will carry a badge and a gun and the authority of the state, “no way to know” is not an acceptable condition.

The committee members have conflicts of interest that cannot be examined

Central committee members are political actors. They have relationships — with candidates, with county commissioners, with local businesses, with law enforcement themselves. They have opinions about how the sheriff’s office should operate. They may have family members who work there. They may have had encounters with previous sheriffs that shaped their preferences. They may owe favors or be owed favors.

None of this is disqualifying in the abstract. Human beings who know their community are exactly who should be making judgments about community leadership. But the ethical obligation that comes with that knowledge is transparency, not secrecy. The conflicts that community embeddedness creates must be visible to be accountable.

A closed interview process means no one outside the room knows whether a committee member with a personal relationship to a candidate disclosed it. No one knows whether a candidate was asked substantive questions about policy and conduct or softball questions designed to reach a predetermined result. No one knows whether one candidate was treated differently from another. No one knows whether the person who emerged from that process did so because of merit or because of who they know.

The ethical failure is not necessarily that any of these things happened. It is that the process was structured to make it impossible to know whether they did.

Designing a process that makes accountability impossible is not a neutral choice. It is a failure of stewardship.

The candidates who are right for the job have nothing to fear from public interviews

Consider the perspective of the candidates themselves.

A person who is genuinely qualified to be the chief law enforcement officer of Jerome County — someone with the judgment, the integrity, the professional record, and the temperament the job demands — loses nothing from being interviewed publicly. Their qualifications are visible. Their answers to questions about use of force, community relations, surveillance policy, officer conduct, and departmental culture would strengthen rather than diminish their standing.

The candidate who benefits from a closed process is the candidate whose qualifications don’t hold up well to scrutiny. The candidate with the right personal relationships but the wrong professional record. The candidate whose answers about how they’d handle difficult situations would raise community concern. The candidate whose prior conduct in law enforcement — if it were known — would give citizens reason to object.

Public interviews do not disadvantage strong candidates. They advantage them. Closing the interviews protects the weak candidate from comparison, the problematic candidate from accountability, and the committee from having to justify a choice that might not withstand public examination.

Jerome County has now had two consecutive sheriffs produced by this closed process, both of whom left under AG investigation. The ethical conclusion that flows from that pattern is not that the committee needs more privacy. It is that the process needs more light.

Democratic legitimacy demands it

The sheriff is an elected office. The vacancy replacement process exists because an elected official left before their term ended — but it is a substitute for the democratic process, not an equivalent of it. When voters elected the sheriff, they made a public choice through a public process. Every candidate was known. Every voter could assess the candidates on whatever basis mattered to them. The result was legitimate because it was transparent.

The committee’s nomination process produces a result that will govern the county for up to two years without a public vote. The people of Jerome County did not choose to give the committee that authority through any democratic act. The Legislature assigned it to them by statute, as a practical mechanism for continuity of governance.

That practical mechanism carries a corresponding moral obligation. When you exercise power that was not granted to you by the people you govern — when you stand in for the democratic process rather than participate in it — you are held to a higher standard of transparency, not a lower one. The legitimacy deficit created by the absence of a vote can only be partially compensated by the presence of accountability. Closing the process deepens the deficit rather than addressing it.

A committee that appoints a sheriff through a closed process is telling the community: we are choosing who will police you, and you have no right to see how we did it. A small group of party insiders, deciding in private who will carry the coercive power of the state — that is not democracy. It is the original complaint against the system democracy was built to replace.

The Flock camera lesson

There is a specific moral dimension to Jerome County’s situation that makes the closed process not just abstractly wrong but concretely harmful.

George Oppedyk — selected through a closed central committee process — used county surveillance technology to query his wife’s license plate more than 700 times over two months. He used the power and equipment of a public law enforcement office to conduct what his own subordinates described as surveillance with no legitimate law enforcement purpose.

A sheriff who survives in secret was himself selected in secret.

The moral connection is direct. A process that shields the selection of someone with surveillance authority from public view is a process that cannot catch, cannot evaluate, and cannot be held accountable for elevating someone who will misuse surveillance authority. The community that was watched without its knowledge by a sheriff it did not publicly select had no opportunity at any stage to ask: what is this person’s history with boundaries? What is their record with personal use of professional resources? What do their subordinates say about their judgment?

Those questions could have been asked in public. They were not asked at all, as far as the public record shows.

The ethical lesson is not complicated. When you give someone the power to watch the public, the public has a right to watch how you chose them.

The plain moral statement

Strip away every legal argument, every statutory citation, every precedent. What remains is this.

A small group of private citizens, accountable to no one outside their party organization, is meeting in private to decide who will be the chief law enforcement officer of Jerome County for the next two years. The person they choose will have the legal authority to arrest every resident of that county. The residents of that county — whose taxes pay for the sheriff’s office, whose safety depends on its leadership, whose rights are at stake in every decision it makes — have no seat in that room. No right to ask questions. No way to know what was said, how the vote went, or whether the process was conducted with the community’s interests at heart.

Good governance does not work this way. Ethical stewardship of public trust does not work this way. The basic democratic principle — that power over the governed is exercised with their knowledge and participation — does not survive a process like this one.

Even if the law may or may not require an open meeting, the community deserves one regardless.

What citizens should demand

When a county sheriff’s seat goes vacant in Idaho, citizens should demand:

A publicly noticed meeting of the § 59-906 nominating body, with agenda posted in advance consistent with the requirements of Idaho Code § 74-204. Open candidate interviews. Open deliberation. A recorded vote — not a secret ballot — on the nominees. Minutes made publicly available within a reasonable time after the meeting, consistent with Idaho Code § 74-205.

And from the Board of County Commissioners: the same — a publicly noticed meeting, open deliberation, and a recorded vote on the appointment.

Your county sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer of your county. The people who decide who can become your sheriff should have to make that decision in public.

Idaho Code § 74-201 says the formation of public policy is public business and shall not be conducted in secret.

Filling a vacancy in the office of county sheriff is the formation of public policy.

It should not be conducted in secret.

Review

Part 1: When Party Insiders Pick Your Sheriff: Are Those Meetings Open to the Public?

Part 2: Jerome County — The Pattern the Process Produced

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

If you think your county has a plan for energy development, you might want to check. Across Idaho, the regulatory response to the data center boom and industrial energy expansion ranges from comprehensive reform proposals to complete silence. Some counties have imposed moratoriums. One enacted a total ban. Others have done nothing at all. Here's how seven counties compare on the protections that matter most.

The Report Card

Assuming Jerome County adopts the ordinance reform package, Jerome County may have the strongest, most complete package in the state. Short of a total ban, the package may provide more protection for farmland and the counties economic welfare than any other ordinance.

What Stands Out

Notification: The Great Failure

Not a single Idaho county — not one — currently requires county-wide notification for large energy projects. Twin Falls County’s draft ordinance requires notification within 300 feet. That’s roughly the length of a football field. A utility-scale solar farm’s visual, noise, and traffic impacts extend for miles. A data center’s water and power impacts are county-wide. The reform package’s proposal of county-wide or 25-mile notification (whichever is greater) for all Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects is the only approach that matches the scale of the impact to the scale of the notification.

Data Centers: The Blind Spot

Only Ada County and the Jerome County reform package specifically address data center facilities. Every other county treats them like any other commercial or industrial use — if they address them at all. Given that a single data center can consume more water than a small city and more electricity than an entire county’s existing load, this regulatory blind spot is staggering.

The Ban vs. The Framework

Bannock County’s total ban on large-scale solar and wind projects is the most dramatic response of any Idaho county. But it’s also the least useful as a policy model because it offers no tiered approach — it blocks the projects that 49.2% of Jerome County residents actually support (small-scale) alongside the ones that 93.7% oppose (large-scale on ag land). A framework that distinguishes between project scales is more durable, more defensible legally, and more responsive to what communities actually want.

The takeaway for every Idaho county: If your ordinance doesn't define energy tiers, protect Class I/II soils, require county-wide notification, mandate decommissioning bonds, and specifically address data centers and battery storage — you have gaps. The Jerome County reform package is a blueprint for filling them.

Send this to your commissioners and legislators, let them know what you think!

Share

Subscribe now

Part 1: When Party Insiders Pick Your Sheriff: Are Those Meetings Open to the Public?

Part 3: Even If the Law Didn’t Require It: Why Closed Sheriff Interviews Are Ethically Indefensible

Part 2: Jerome County — The Pattern the Process Produced

The legal argument in Part 1 is not hypothetical in Jerome County, Idaho. It describes a process that has already run twice in the last eight years — and what it produced the first time is now a matter of public record.

The first vacancy: Sheriff McFall, 2018

Jerome County Sheriff Doug McFall submitted his resignation to county commissioners while the state attorney general’s investigation into the sheriff’s office was still ongoing. The Jerome County Republican Central Committee moved immediately to find a replacement, interviewing candidates and producing a list of nominees.

The Jerome County Republican Central Committee interviewed three candidates — Deputy Gary Taylor, Capt. George Oppedyk, and former Jerome County Sheriff George “PeeWee” Silver — before making a recommendation to the county commissioners.

The commissioners unanimously voted 3-0 to appoint Capt. George Oppedyk. Capt. Oppedyk was also chosen as the preferred candidate by the Jerome County Republican Central Committee.

There is no public record of that central committee meeting being openly noticed, publicly attended, or conducted with minutes available to the public. McFall, who left under investigation, was later charged. The Idaho Attorney General’s Office filed charges against former Sheriff Doug McFall, who was arraigned on four criminal charges including aiding and abetting grand theft, a felony, and misuse of public money, a felony.

The committee’s closed-door process produced Oppedyk. Oppedyk won election in 2020 and 2024 and served as Jerome County’s chief law enforcement officer for eight years.

The second vacancy: Sheriff Oppedyk, 2026

Flock camera search logs revealed that Sheriff Oppedyk had made hundreds of searches — all labeled “test” and all for the same vehicle. The searches were not just within Jerome County. They also included Twin Falls. “We cannot find any legitimate reason why one individual would run one plate numerous times for a test,” said Twin Falls Chief Hicks.

The Attorney General’s Office sent a letter to the Jerome County prosecuting attorney on Feb. 11 regarding a public corruption complaint. In addition to the Flock camera allegations, the AG investigated claims of falsified certification records and employee timecards. The letter said the Flock system indicated that in “one month’s time,” the sheriff queried his wife’s license plate number approximately 152 times. Flock camera logs showed that Sheriff Oppedyk searched for the vehicle more than 700 times between early July 2025 and mid-September 2025.

The Attorney General’s Office concluded that criminal prosecution was not warranted. “While the Sheriff did use the agency’s ALPR system to repeatedly query his wife’s license plate number, his stated purpose was to check the system’s reliability ahead of a contract decision,” the letter said. The AG stated its authority is limited to investigating and prosecuting crimes and that it does not have authority over potential policy violations.

Sheriff Oppedyk will retire effective April 18, about halfway through his current four-year term.

The same committee runs the same process again

Under Idaho law, the Jerome County Republican Central Committee is responsible for nominating three qualified individuals to the Jerome County Board of Commissioners, which will then appoint one person to serve the remainder of the sheriff’s unexpired term, which expires Jan. 10, 2028. “Qualified individuals who wish to be considered should submit a written application to the Jerome County Republican Central Committee by email to rewilliams@wmlattys.com.”

That email address belongs to an attorney at Williams, Meservy & Larsen, LLP — a Jerome, Idaho law firm established in 1935 whose clients include government entities throughout Southern Idaho.

• The same committee.

• The same process.

• The same absence of any public notice of an open meeting, any posted agenda, or any requirement that the public be permitted to observe who is being interviewed, how the interviews are conducted, or how the vote is taken.

Why this pattern matters

Two consecutive Jerome County sheriffs have now departed midterm under Idaho Attorney General investigation. Both vacancies were filled — the first one, and now the second — through the same central committee nomination process. That process, as argued throughout this post, should be subject to Idaho’s Open Meeting Law. It has not been conducted as if it were.

There is a particular irony that demands acknowledgment plainly.

Sheriff Oppedyk used a Flock camera system — a network of automatic license plate readers — to conduct what his own chief deputy and a neighboring police chief described as surveillance of his wife’s movements, hundreds of times, using county law enforcement technology. He used the power and equipment of his office to watch someone without their knowledge, outside any legitimate law enforcement purpose, in a context his own subordinates could find no justification for.

He was placed in that office by a process conducted out of public view.

The argument this post makes — that Idaho Code § 59-906, read with § 74-202 and § 74-206(1)(a), requires the central committee’s nomination meeting to be open — is not abstract. It is the answer to the question Jerome County residents should be asking right now: who is in that room deciding who becomes the next sheriff, what are they asking the candidates, and how are they voting?

Idaho Code § 74-201 declares that the formation of public policy is public business and shall not be conducted in secret.

The Jerome County Republican Central Committee is, tonight, forming the policy of who will serve as the county’s chief law enforcement officer for the next two years. The applications are being received at a private law firm’s email address.

Jerome County has had two consecutive sheriffs produced by this closed process, both of whom left under AG investigation. The first was criminally charged. The second surrendered his POST certifications upon retirement after being investigated for using county surveillance technology to repeatedly query his wife’s location.

• The process that produced those outcomes is happening again, right now, in private.

• That is not accountability. That is a pattern.

• The law says it should be open. The history of this specific county says why that matters.

Read More:

Part 1: When Party Insiders Pick Your Sheriff: Are Those Meetings Open to the Public?

Part 3: Even If the Law Didn’t Require It: Why Closed Sheriff Interviews Are Ethically Indefensible

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

When Party Insiders Pick Your Sheriff: Are Those Meetings Open to the Public?

On March 31st, 2026, the Jerome Republican Central Committee met to interview candidates for sheriff. As reported by attendees, the candidates were interviewed in a non-agenda executive session, outside of the public view. While that is in and of itself, anti-Republican, it is worse — at least in my opinion — it was illegal. Let me explain how I came to that conclusion.

Prefatory note on method

This analysis does not rest on policy preference. It rests on statutory text, the canon against surplusage, the Idaho Attorney General’s own interpretive framework, and relevant case authority. The central legal conclusion — that the county central committee convening under Idaho Code § 59-906 is subject to Idaho’s Open Meeting Law — has not been tested in Idaho court. That is stated plainly at the outset. What follows is a good-faith legal argument that a court could sustain, built step by step from the statutes themselves.

The governing policy declaration

Idaho Code § 74-201, titled “Formation of public policy at open meetings,” states:

“The people of the state of Idaho in creating the instruments of government that serve them, do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies so created. Therefore, the legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and shall not be conducted in secret.”

This is not preamble ornamentation. Idaho courts treat § 74-201 as operative interpretive guidance. The Idaho Attorney General’s Open Meeting Law Manual (July 2025) opens with direct quotation of this section and instructs: “Those who conduct meetings must remember this policy above all when deciding whether a meeting should be open. If a meeting is closed, there must be a compelling reason, supported by the statute itself, or by subsequent court rulings. Remember, when in doubt, open the meeting.”

That principle governs throughout what follows.

Step One: What § 59-906 actually creates

Idaho Code § 59-906(1) provides, in full:

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all vacancies in any county office of any of the several counties of the state, except that of the county commissioners (who shall be appointed by the governor), shall be filled by appointment by the county commissioners of the county in which the vacancy occurs in accordance with the procedure prescribed below until the next general election, when such vacancy shall be filled by election.

The vacancy shall be filled as follows: the county central committee of the same political party, if any, of the former officer, whose office is vacant, shall submit a list of three (3) nominations to the board of county commissioners within fifteen (15) days from the day the office is vacated. The board of county commissioners shall fill the vacancy by appointment from the submitted list within fifteen (15) days. Should no appointment be made within fifteen (15) days, the county central committee of the political party submitting the nominations shall designate one (1) of the three (3) nominees to fill the vacancy. The person selected shall be a person who possesses the same qualifications at the time of his appointment as those provided by law for election to the office. Upon failure of the committee to make a selection before the expiration of the additional fifteen (15) day period, the board of county commissioners shall, within five (5) days, fill the vacancy by appointing a person having the same qualifications at the time of his appointment as those provided by law for election to the office. If the person who has vacated the office has not been affiliated with a political party, the vacancy shall be filled by the board of county commissioners by appointment of a person having the same qualifications at the time of his appointment as those provided by law for election to the office.

Read this statute with precision. The Legislature did not merely instruct an existing private party organization to do something on its own terms. It established a mandatory statutory procedure — with defined actors, defined timelines, and defined legal consequences — for filling a vacancy in a county elective office. Within that procedure, central committee members are assigned a specific governmental function: evaluating candidates, selecting three nominees, and if necessary making the appointment themselves.

The critical legal question is not what the central committee is as a standing private party organization. The question is what it becomes — what new legal entity is called into existence — when § 59-906 is triggered by a vacancy.

The answer under the statutory text is: a temporary body with statutory governmental authority. The Legislature used central committee membership as the qualification criterion for participation. But the body that gathers, deliberates, nominates, and potentially appoints is not the central committee acting on party business. It is a body created by statute, constituted for a statutory purpose, exercising governmental authority over a county elective office. It is a new, temporary, statutory committee — one that happens to draw its membership from the central committee but is legally distinct from it.

This is not a novel concept. The Legislature regularly creates statutory bodies whose membership is drawn from existing organizations. The source of membership does not determine the legal character of the body. What determines legal character is the source of authority — and here the authority comes entirely from § 59-906, not from party rules, party bylaws, or any private organizational decision.

Step Two: That body is a “public agency” under § 74-202(4)

Idaho Code § 74-202(4), confirmed verbatim from the Idaho Legislature’s official website, defines “public agency” to mean:

“(a) Any state board, commission, department, authority, educational institution or other state agency created by or pursuant to statute, other than courts and their agencies and divisions, and the judicial council, and the district magistrates commission;

(b) Any regional board, commission, department or authority created by or pursuant to statute;

(c) Any county, city, school district, special district, or other municipal corporation or political subdivision of the state of Idaho; and

(d) Any subagency of a public agency created by or pursuant to statute, ordinance, or other legislative act.”

The § 59-906 nominating body fits within this definition on at least two independent grounds.

Under § 74-202(4)(b), a “regional board, commission, department or authority created by or pursuant to statute” is a public agency. The § 59-906 nominating body is a body created by or pursuant to statute — specifically by the procedure § 59-906 establishes — that operates at the county level to perform a governmental function. It is precisely a local authority created by statute.

Under § 74-202(4)(d), a “subagency of a public agency created by or pursuant to statute, ordinance, or other legislative act” is a public agency. The county is unambiguously a public agency under § 74-202(4)(c). The § 59-906 nominating body performs a function — filling a vacancy in a county office — that belongs to the county’s governmental process. It is a body created by statute to perform a specific stage of that governmental process. It is a subagency of the county for that purpose.

On the subagency question, the Idaho Attorney General’s Open Meeting Law Manual, Question 3, cites Cathcart v. Anderson, 85 Wash.2d 102, 530 P.2d 313 (1975), for the proposition that it is not necessary that a statute expressly create a subagency — an enabling provision that allows a body to come into existence at some future time is sufficient.

§ 59-906 is that enabling provision. It enables the § 59-906 nominating body to come into existence whenever a county elective office is vacated and the former officer was affiliated with a political party.

Either § 74-202(4)(b) or § 74-202(4)(d) independently supports coverage. Both apply.

Step Three: The § 59-906 body is a “governing body” under § 74-202(5)

Idaho Code § 74-202(5), confirmed verbatim, defines “governing body” as:

“the members of any public agency that consists of two (2) or more members, with the authority to make decisions for or recommendations to a public agency regarding any matter.”

The § 59-906 nominating body satisfies each element of this definition.

1. It consists of two or more members — the precinct committeemen of the county central committee who constitute the nominating body.

2. It has authority to make recommendations to a public agency — its list of three nominees goes directly to the Board of County Commissioners, which is unambiguously a public agency under § 74-202(4)(c).

3. And it has authority to make decisions for a public agency — when the Board of County Commissioners fails to act within fifteen days, the nominating body does not merely recommend. It designates the appointee. It substitutes entirely for the commissioners. It exercises final governmental authority over who fills a county elective office.

On the question of what constitutes sufficient authority, the Idaho Supreme Court addressed the statutory basis requirement in Safe Air For Everyone v. Idaho State Department of Agriculture, 145 Idaho 164, 177 P.3d 378 (2008). The Court held that “the authority to make decisions for an agency or recommendations to an agency must be statutorily based.” That is precisely what the § 59-906 nominating body possesses. Its authority to nominate and its authority to appoint when commissioners fail are both expressly created by statute. There is no question of implied or delegated authority — the text of § 59-906 states both powers directly.

Step Four: The meeting itself is covered under § 74-202(6) and § 74-203(1)

Idaho Code § 74-202(6) defines “meeting” as:

“the convening of a governing body of a public agency to make a decision or to deliberate toward a decision on any matter.”

When central committee members convene under § 59-906 authority to evaluate candidates, conduct interviews, deliberate on nominees, vote on the list, or — if commissioners fail to act — designate the appointee, they are convening to make decisions and deliberate toward decisions. Every element of the statutory definition is satisfied.

Idaho Code § 74-203(1), the operative mandate of the Open Meeting Law, states:

“Except as provided below, all meetings of a governing body of a public agency shall be open to the public and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting except as otherwise provided by this act. No decision at a meeting of a governing body of a public agency shall be made by secret ballot.”

The prohibition on secret ballot is unambiguous and absolute within its context. The vote on which three candidates to nominate, and any vote to directly designate an appointee, cannot be conducted by secret ballot. The vote must be on the record.

Step Five: No executive session is available — the Legislature said so explicitly

Even if the § 59-906 body accepted Open Meeting Law coverage, it might argue that candidate interviews and deliberations could be closed under the executive session provision covering candidate evaluation. That argument fails on the plain text of the statute.

Idaho Code § 74-206(1)(a), confirmed verbatim from the Idaho Attorney General’s Open Meeting Law Manual (July 2025), provides:

“To consider hiring a public officer, employee, staff member or individual agent, wherein the respective qualities of individuals are to be evaluated in order to fill a particular vacancy or need. This paragraph does not apply to filling a vacancy in an elective office or deliberations about staffing needs in general;”

To be clear:

• The county sheriff is an elected officer.

• The vacancy being filled is a vacancy in an elective office.

• The Legislature wrote the one executive session provision that could cover candidate evaluation and specifically excluded elective office vacancies from its reach.

This exclusion is not ambiguous. It does not say “generally does not apply.” It does not create exceptions. It states flatly: “This paragraph does not apply to filling a vacancy in an elective office.”

Idaho Code § 74-206(3) independently provides:

“No executive session may be held for the purpose of taking any final action or making any final decision.”

The nomination of three candidates is a final action. The designation of an appointee when commissioners fail to act is a final decision. Neither can occur in executive session regardless of what other subsection of § 74-206(1) might be invoked. Even if some other executive session basis applied to some part of the proceedings — and none does — the final vote on nominees and any appointment decision must occur in open session.

The remaining executive session authorizations in § 74-206(1) — real property acquisition under (c), exempt records under (d), trade negotiations under (e), legal counsel for litigation under (f), pardons and parole under (g), juvenile corrections under (h), risk management under (i), and labor contracts under (j) — have no application to nominating candidates for a vacant county office. None of them applies.

The result is complete: every stage of the § 59-906 process, from candidate interviews through deliberation through nomination vote through any direct appointment, must occur in open public session.

Step Six: The canon against surplusage confirms legislative intent

The § 74-206(1)(a) elective office carve-out provides independent confirmation through statutory construction.

A foundational canon of statutory interpretation holds that every word and phrase in a statute is presumed to have meaning and operative effect. Courts disfavor readings that render statutory language mere surplusage. See Idaho Water Resources Board v. Kramer, 97 Idaho 535, 548 P.2d 45 (1976), where the Idaho Supreme Court applied standard principles of statutory construction in the context of public agency authority.

Apply that canon here: why did the Legislature carve elective office vacancies out of § 74-206(1)(a)?

If no Open Meeting Law-covered body were ever involved in filling elective office vacancies, the carve-out has no work to do. It would be meaningless language inserted for no purpose. Courts do not read statutes to produce that result.

The carve-out has operative meaning only if the Legislature understood that bodies subject to the Open Meeting Law would be filling vacancies in elective offices. Under § 59-906, the body filling such vacancies — at the nomination stage — is composed of central committee members acting under statutory authority. The most coherent reading of the Legislature’s decision to insert the elective office carve-out into § 74-206(1)(a) is that it was inserted precisely because of the § 59-906 process — to ensure that the candidate evaluation conducted by the § 59-906 nominating body could not be closed to the public.

The carve-out is not evidence that someone thought about this issue and decided it was a close call. It is evidence that the Legislature resolved the question against closed proceedings, and wrote that resolution into the executive session statute in plain language.

Step Seven: Candidate materials are public records

The Open Meeting Law analysis is reinforced by a controlling Idaho Supreme Court decision on the public records dimension.

In Federated Publications Inc. v. Boise City, 128 Idaho 459, 915 P.2d 21 (1996), the Idaho Supreme Court considered whether names and resumes of applicants for appointment to a vacancy on the Boise City Council were subject to disclosure under Idaho’s public records law.

The Court held that the personnel records exemption — which protects applicants for employment — does not apply to applicants for public office. The Court’s reasoning was that the term “applicant” in the exemption refers to applicants for positions as public employees, not applicants to become public officials. Therefore, the names and resumes of applicants for a vacant public office are open public records.

Federated Publications was decided in the context of a city council vacancy. The same logic applies directly to a county sheriff vacancy under § 59-906. The candidates who submit materials to the central committee for evaluation are not applicants for employment. They are applicants for a public office. Their names and application materials are public records under the Federated Publications rule.

If the underlying records are public, the meeting at which those records are evaluated and acted upon should be as well. A body cannot hold a public record in secret deliberation and produce a result affecting a public office without that process being subject to public scrutiny.

Step Eight: The consequences of non-compliance

Idaho Code § 74-208(1) states:

“If an action, or any deliberation or decision making that leads to an action, occurs at any meeting which fails to comply with the provisions of this chapter, such action shall be null and void.”

This consequence runs to the entire chain. If the § 59-906 nominating body deliberates on candidates in a closed meeting, and produces a list of nominees from that closed deliberation, the list is the product of a meeting that failed to comply with the Open Meeting Law. The nomination is null and void. The commissioners’ appointment from that list is built on a void foundation. The appointment itself is vulnerable to challenge.

Idaho Code § 74-208(6) provides that a suit to declare an action null and void must be commenced within thirty days of the decision or action resulting from the non-compliant meeting. That is a tight window. It places a premium on public awareness of when these nomination meetings occur — which is itself an argument for the notice and posting requirements that Open Meeting Law compliance would impose.

When an Attorney Doesn’t Know Best

(this section has been updated / corrected)

The most telling detail in the Jerome County sheriff vacancy process is what happened at the meeting and what did not happen. On one hand, no questions were pre-planned or considered before hand and on the other the meeting process itself went forth as dysfunctional as the previous candidate searches - no public visibility.

Applications for the position of Jerome County Sheriff were directed to rewilliams@wmlattys.com — an attorney at Williams, Meservy & Larsen, LLP, a Jerome law firm established in 1935 whose clients include government entities throughout Southern Idaho. That attorney is effectively administering the § 59-906 nomination process on behalf of the Jerome County Republican Central Committee.

That is the detail that matters.

A licensed Idaho attorney, bound by the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, is the intake point for a process that — under the legal argument laid out in this post — should be subject to the Idaho Open Meeting Law and candidate selection processes. Applications for a public office are flowing into a private law firm’s email address.

The public was simply never invited to watch the process. The process proceeded as it always has, because it always has, and because the attorney administering it had no reason to believe anyone would notice or object to the secrecy.

That is the more serious indictment.

Idaho Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4 states it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation, or to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.

The question Rule 8.4 raises here is not whether the attorney committed a dramatic act of misconduct. It is whether an attorney who administers a process affecting a public office — a process with a credible legal argument for Open Meeting Law coverage and statutes governing candidate searches — bears any professional obligation to surface that question before proceeding. The argument is not obscure. It flows from the plain text of § 74-202(4), § 74-202(5), and most directly from the elective office carve-out in § 74-206(1)(a) — language the Legislature placed in the statute for exactly this kind of situation.

An attorney who knows, or should know, that a credible legal argument exists for open meeting requirements, and who proceeds to administer a closed process without raising that question to the committee, to the county prosecuting attorney, or to the public, has made a choice. Not a dramatic choice. A quiet one. The quiet choice to keep doing what has always been done, because nobody is watching, and because the people most affected by the outcome have no seat in the process and no way to demand one.

That quiet choice is not legally neutral when made by a licensed attorney administering a statutory governmental process.

The pattern that quiet choice produced

This process occured at least once before, in 2018. Back then, the Jerome County Republican Central Committee interviewed several candidates to replace Sheriff Doug McFall. They interviewed — Deputy Gary Taylor, Capt. George Oppedyk, and former Jerome County Sheriff George “PeeWee” Silver — before making a recommendation to the county commissioners. The public didn’t get to watch the candidate interviews (again, state laws says this cannot be done in executive session), There is no public record of what was asked, how the candidates were evaluated, or how the vote was taken.

The commissioners unanimously voted 3-0 to appoint Capt. George Oppedyk. Capt. Oppedyk was also chosen as the preferred candidate by the Jerome County Republican Central Committee.

Eight years later

Flock camera search logs revealed that Sheriff Oppedyk had made hundreds of searches — all labeled “test” and all for the same vehicle. The searches were not just within Jerome County. They also included Twin Falls. The Attorney General’s Office found that in one month’s time, the sheriff queried his wife’s license plate number approximately 152 times. Flock camera logs showed that Sheriff Oppedyk searched for the vehicle more than 700 times between early July 2025 and mid-September 2025.

The Attorney General’s Office concluded that criminal prosecution was not warranted but stated its authority is limited to investigating and prosecuting crimes and that it does not have authority over potential policy violations.

Sheriff Oppedyk will retire effective April 18, about halfway through his current four-year term. Note, the office is not yet vacant and arguably, the candidate search probably should not start before the vacancy.

Now the same committee is administering the same process to produce the next sheriff.

The moral weight of that sequence is not subtle. A closed process produced a sheriff who used county surveillance technology to track his wife hundreds of times. The AG investigated and found no crime it could prosecute. The sheriff retired. And the same closed process, administered by the same community of insiders, is now running again.

Nobody had to challenge it.

That is not a sign that the process is working. It is a sign that the process has been running long enough and quietly enough that the community has stopped expecting to be included.

An attorney who administers that process without asking whether it should be open is not making a neutral professional decision. The attorney is making a choice to keep the lights off in a process that has already shown, in this specific county, what happens when nobody is watching.

Read More

Part 2: Jerome County — The Pattern the Process Produced

Part 3: Even If the Law Didn’t Require It: Why Closed Sheriff Interviews Are Ethically Indefensible

Subscribe now

In the spring of 2026, while Idaho legislators debated tax exemptions for Big Tech and data center developers quietly optioned farmland across the Magic Valley, Jerome County residents did something almost no one does anymore: they read the county’s entire zoning ordinance, compared it against federal definitions, and surveyed their neighbors.

In 2026, Idaho lawmakers introduced House Bill 897, originally drafted to sunset tax exemptions for large-scale developments such as data centers and other high-capital projects.

The bill passed the House, signaling broad agreement that existing incentives were too open-ended. However, after being sent to the Senate, the bill failed to advance out of committee. Legislators reported significant industry pressure to weaken or block the measure. As a result, the proposed sunset of exemptions was never enacted, and the existing incentive structure remains in place. Senate leadership chose to favor out-of-state financial interests over reforms aimed at limiting long-term tax exemptions in Idaho.

The result is the Jerome County Citizen’s Energy Ordinance Reform Package, a 200+ page citizen submittal that may be one of the most comprehensive local energy policy proposals ever assembled by a private citizen(s) in Idaho. It covers everything from three-tier energy facility classifications to decommissioning bonds, from aquifer protection to constitutional property rights, from the data center investment bubble to battery energy storage safety, baseload priorities to farmland preservation — and it’s backed by a community survey where 93.7% of respondents said they oppose large-scale energy facilities in agricultural zones.

This isn’t an abstract policy debate. It’s a fight over whether the county that feeds Idaho and the nation gets turned into a power plant for Silicon Valley.

The Problem Nobody Wanted to Talk About

Jerome County’s existing zoning ordinance, like those of many rural Idaho counties, was written for a world that no longer exists. Energy facilities — including industrial-scale solar arrays, wind farms, battery storage systems, and data centers consuming hundreds of megawatts — were either undefined or loosely regulated. In Jerome County’s case, energy projects were permitted in any zone, including prime agricultural land.

This wasn’t an oversight. It was an invitation.

The same features that make the Magic Valley one of the most productive agricultural regions on earth — flat terrain, cheap land, abundant water, and reliable electricity — also make it irresistible to the data center and energy industries. When the Jerome County Planning and Zoning Commission released its draft recommendations in February 2026, Pierson saw what he calls a “regulatory vacuum” — incomplete definitions, missing protections, and critical gaps between federal standards and local implementation.

What’s in the Package

The Citizen’s Energy Ordinance Reform Package is structured in a deliberate reading order, beginning with the policy foundation and moving through implementation, evidence, and reference materials. At its core are three proposed ordinance chapters — revisions to Chapter 10 (Utilities, within the Comprehensive Plan), Chapter 11 (Energy Facilities), and Chapter 7 (Conditional Use) — that together create a complete regulatory framework the county currently lacks.

The keystone of the framework is a three-tier energy classification system aligned with federal definitions and Idaho state code:

Beyond the ordinance chapters, the Ordinance Reform Package includes a detailed response to the P&Z Commission's own recommendations — a line-by-line rebuttal identifying where the Commission's draft fell short — plus a position paper on property rights and community notification, a legal and ethical justification grounded in constitutional case law from Euclid v. Ambler to Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, a data center crisis paper documenting the $700 billion AI infrastructure bubble, a water resources supplement analyzing the Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer's 75,300 acre-foot shortfall, the complete community survey results, a glossary of definitions, and a comprehensive sources document spanning federal agencies, peer-reviewed research, state legislation, and constitutional law.

Idaho’s County-by-County Patchwork

Jerome County is far from alone in grappling with these questions — but it is among the few trying to answer them comprehensively. Across Idaho, a patchwork of reactions is emerging that ranges from outright bans to regulatory paralysis.

What's striking about this comparison is how much the Ordinance Reform Package addresses that other counties have left on the table. Twin Falls County's draft, for example, requires conditional use permits and protects prime farmland — but its notification radius is only 300 feet and it has no data center provisions. Kootenai County imposed a moratorium and is considering an outright ban, but hasn't proposed a tiered framework that would allow responsible small-scale development. Bannock County's total ban is the bluntest instrument of all — effective at blocking large projects but offering no pathway for community-scale energy that residents might actually want.

The Water Nobody Talks About

Perhaps the most urgent dimension of the Ordinance Reform Package is its treatment of water. The Eastern Snake Plain Aquifer — the lifeblood of southern Idaho agriculture — is already running a 75,300 acre-foot annual shortfall. Every new data center, every industrial cooling system, every large-scale energy facility that draws on this resource pushes the deficit further.

The numbers are sobering. A single large data center can consume between 500,000 and 5 million gallons of water per day for cooling. Idaho’s HB 895, which passed the House in March 2026, would prohibit new data centers from using groundwater for cooling — but only for facilities that begin construction after July 1, 2026. Facilities already permitted or under construction are grandfathered in.

Meanwhile, Idaho Power’s own 20-year plan projects a 50% to 75% capacity increase will be needed to service new large loads — and the rate increases to fund that expansion are already hitting residential ratepayers. The utility’s 2025 rate case resulted in a 7.48% average increase, with the original proposal calling for 17% on residential customers alone. The Gemstone Technology Park data center near Kuna is expected to consume 600 to 800 megawatts — roughly 20% of Idaho Power’s entire current generation capacity — by itself.

The Ordinance Reform Package ’s proposed solution is straightforward: define data center facilities as any operation consuming 1 MW or more of electrical load or 100,000 gallons per day of water, subject them to Tier 3 review requirements, and require comprehensive water impact assessments before any permit is issued. Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) would be prohibited in all agricultural zones due to fire and contamination risks.

The Bubble Question

One of the most provocative sections of the Ordinance Reform Package is its data center crisis position paper, which argues that the current AI-driven data center boom has the structural characteristics of a speculative bubble. Citing Goldman Sachs research, Yale School of Management analysis, and Brookings Institution studies, the paper identifies six classic bubble indicators present in the current market: exponential capital deployment ($700 billion globally), revenue uncertainty, overcapacity risk, historical pattern matching, cost externalization to local communities, and stranded asset potential.

The implications for Jerome County are concrete: if the bubble deflates, communities that rezoned agricultural land for data center development would be left with decommissioned industrial facilities, degraded farmland, depleted aquifer capacity, and rate increases that can’t be unwound. The Ordinance Reform Package argues that this risk alone justifies requiring full decommissioning bonds — set at 125% of restoration costs — before any permit is issued.

What Makes This Package Different

The Ordinance Reform Package stands apart from other county efforts in several ways. It doesn’t simply say “no” to energy development — it creates a tiered framework where small-scale projects can proceed with minimal friction while large industrial facilities face the scrutiny their impacts deserve. It doesn’t rely on moratoriums as a permanent solution — it proposes permanent ordinance language. And it doesn’t ask the county to take the author’s word for anything — it backs every claim with federal sources, peer-reviewed research, state legislation, constitutional case law, and direct community survey data.

About the Author's Disclaimer: "How you choose to view, review, and/or implement these recommendations is obviously out of my control. I am not looking for any credit now or in the future for this submission; my name is attached only for accountability and transparency."

The package also includes Idaho’s 2026 House Concurrent Resolution 032, the state’s energy sovereignty resolution affirming Idaho’s right to determine its own energy future — a resolution that strengthens the legal foundation for local zoning authority over energy facilities.

The Road Ahead

Whether Jerome County’s commissioners adopt the Ordinance Reform Package wholesale, cherry-pick its strongest provisions, or file it away and hope the problem solves itself remains to be seen. But the package’s existence changes the terms of the debate. It is now part of the official public record — submitted to the P&Z Commission, the Board of Commissioners, the County Clerk, and the Idaho State Archives. It cannot be ignored without a conscious choice to ignore it.

And that may be its most important contribution. In a political climate where energy companies spend millions on lobbyists and public relations campaigns, a single citizen with twenty years of technology experience, a clear understanding of the stakes, and the willingness to do the work has produced a document that is, by any measure, more thorough than what most county governments manage to produce with paid staff and consultants.

The question now isn’t whether the Ordinance Reform Package is good enough. The question is whether Jerome County’s leaders are willing to match the effort of the citizens they serve.

Subscribe now

Audio:
In the spring of 2026, Idaho legislators debated tax exemptions for Big Tech and data center developers.

While those debates unfolded, Big Tech set its sights on farmland across the Magic Valley.

At the same time, Jerome County residents did something most people never do. They read the county’s entire zoning ordinance, compared it against federal definitions and other county ordinances, and then surveyed their neighbors.

The result was the Jerome County Citizen’s Energy Ordinance Reform Package.

It is a 200-plus-page citizen submission, one of the most comprehensive local energy policy proposals ever assembled by a private citizen in Idaho.

It covers everything from three-tier energy facility classifications to decommissioning bonds, from aquifer protection to constitutional property rights, from the data center investment bubble to battery energy storage safety.

It also establishes baseload energy priorities and creates transparent, objective standards designed to protect Jerome County from lawsuits by developers.

Most importantly, the reform package firmly preserves farmland, restricts the use of limited water resources, and limits, as much as possible, development on public lands and impacts to the viewshed.

The package is backed by a community survey, where 93.7 percent of respondents said they oppose large-scale energy facilities in agricultural zones.

This is not an abstract policy debate. It is a fight over whether the county that feeds Idaho and the nation is turned into a power plant for Silicon Valley.

Subscribe now

One of the Men that Inspired the Song

From the edge of his 500 acres east of Jerome, Dean Dimond can see practically from Rupert to the Hagerman Valley and from the South Hills to the peaks of the Sawtooths. On a clear winter night, he says, it looks like you could reach up and grab a star. That sky, that silence, that uninterrupted horizon is what he has been fighting to protect.

Dimond is a farmer and has worked his ground since the 1990s. He did not set out to be an activist or an organizer or a courthouse regular. He set out to farm, but his life became more complicated when several large corporations decided southern Idaho was ripe for picking.

The Lava Ridge Fight

The first fight came with Lava Ridge — a proposed 400-turbine wind project from New York-based LS Power that would have placed industrial wind infrastructure across 76,000 acres of public land in Jerome, Lincoln, and Minidoka Counties. Dimond co-founded Stop Lava Ridge, a grassroots coalition of farmers, ranchers, and community members who packed meeting rooms, circulated petitions, and showed up at county commission hearings across the Magic Valley.

When the BLM approved a scaled-back version of the project in late 2024, Dimond did not fold. “We’re not going to give up,” he said. “We’re going to fight this thing until it’s dead.” President Trump halted Lava Ridge on his first day back in office. But the people of the Magic Valley know the fight is not permanent — a different administration, a different day, and those turbines come back. The land use decisions being made at the county level right now are the only durable protection that does not depend on who is sitting in the White House.

The Land and What Lives On It

The concerns raised by Dimond and his neighbors were never just about aesthetics. The high desert of the Magic Valley is sage grouse country. Opponents documented that wind development would shrink and fragment sage grouse habitat — a species that abandons areas around wind infrastructure entirely, not just during construction but permanently. The turbines don’t just change the view. They change what the land can support.

Jerome County Commissioner candidate Jerry Holton raised a concern that is harder to quantify but no less real: mule deer and antelope migration. The public lands of the Snake River Plain function as winter range and migration corridor for herds that have used those routes for generations. Industrial energy infrastructure — turbines, transmission towers, solar farms, access roads, substations — does not coexist with migration. It redirects it, fragments it, and over time eliminates it.

History That Cannot Be Rebuilt

The Minidoka National Historic Site sits in Jerome County. It is where more than 13,000 Japanese Americans were incarcerated during World War II. Friends of Minidoka, the nonprofit that preserves the site, opposed Lava Ridge on the grounds that the turbines — some proposed as close as two miles from the site under the original plan — would destroy the experience of isolation and remoteness that is inseparable from understanding what happened there. The BLM eventually moved the closest turbine to nine miles away. Some opponents considered that insufficient.

The viewshed concern extends beyond Minidoka. The open desert skyline of the Snake River Plain is itself a historical and cultural landscape. A 660-foot turbine visible from thirty miles, transmission lines, battery storage, and sub-stations change what that landscape means and what it is able to hold. History has shown that you cannot count on the promises of large corporations or even the state government to make it right — you cannot easily restore a viewshed once it is gone, and the desert ecosystem may never recover.

Who Pays the Bill

As industrial energy development accelerated across southern Idaho, a parallel fight emerged over who bears the cost. Idaho Power has raised rates for irrigating farmers by 17% in energy charges and an extraordinary 138% in demand charges since 2021. The driver, by Idaho Power’s own account, is new demand — and the primary source of that demand is large new loads, most of them data centers.

Meta is building a data center on 485 acres in southern Idaho. The Gemstone Technology Park data center in Kuna is projected to require 600 to 800 megawatts of power — roughly 20% of Idaho Power’s entire existing generation capacity. Micron’s semiconductor plants could require up to 1,000 megawatts more. Together, these new large loads could require Idaho Power to increase its capacity by 50 to 75 percent. The infrastructure costs to support that growth are, under current rate structures, spread across all ratepayers — including the farmers and small businesses that had nothing to do with creating the demand.

Idaho legislators introduced a bill to require new customers drawing more than 10 megawatts to cover their own infrastructure costs. It passed the House 62 to 8 and died in the Senate, so the cost shifting continues.

The transmission lines now being proposed or in process, across Jerome County — including the Southwest Intertie Project (SWIP-N) running directly over Dimond’s house — are part of the same infrastructure build-out. The energy they carry is destined for Nevada then California. Through recent FERC filings, the line has been integrated into an energy market governed in part by California’s grid operator, CAISO. The costs, the land disruption, the broken viewsheds, the fragmented migration corridors, the displaced wildlife — those stay in Jerome County.

The Fight Is Not Over

This is the pattern of Dean Dimond’s fight: quiet until he isn’t, local until the issue demands more, persistent past the point where most people stop. He has testified at county commissions, spoken at congressional delegation meetings, organized community forums, and filed public records requests. He has done it without funding, without political infrastructure, and without the legal firepower that LS Power brings to every hearing.

The Magic Valley has a long memory. Chinese laborers built the Oregon Short Line Railroad through this country in the 1880s — some of them are buried in an unmarked graveyard near Bliss, their story largely lost. The canal system that turned high desert into farmland in the early 1900s was carved out by hard-rock miners recruited from Nevada, later joined by Depression-era WPA workers — most of them nameless in the historical record. The Dust Bowl families arrived with nothing and built something on ground that did not give easily. Five and six generations — and more — of families have built their lives on this ground. That is not a statistic. That is a century and a half of people who stayed, who worked, who buried their parents here and raised their children here, and who assumed their grandchildren would do the same.

We only have to look east to Virginia or to the center of the country to see what mega corporations have already done and what they are planning next — the data centers, the transmission corridors, the wind and solar fields that blanket productive land in the name of progress. The executives who sign those plans live nowhere near here. The investors who fund them will never drive these roads. When the boom fades — and it always fades — the bust lands entirely on the people who were here before the contracts arrived and will still be here long after the companies have moved on. That is the pattern. It has always been the pattern.

Dean Dimond knows that history. He is standing in it.

This song remembers that the fight belongs to everyone who packed a public meeting, signed a petition, or stood at a microphone and made their case to people who had already made up their minds — every backroad person in the Magic Valley who refused to be quiet, refused to be bought, and refused to believe that the land their family built five and six generations on could simply be signed away by someone who will never have to live with what comes next.

The fight isn’t over. More powerlines, more plans for wind turbines and solar. Plans for data centers. A new battle is coming, we need to figure out who is going to lead and who is going to welcome the national and international mega-corporations. We need to figure out who is going to gaslight and pretend to share our values.

Review a Citizen’s Proposal for an Energy Ordinance in Jerome County
Citizens Proposal

Share

Some Say We Will Never Win

Original Lyrics © Copyright 2026, Jeff A Pierson

Verse 1

We grew up wild, steel in our spine, chasing the wind
Raised on this land like it would last forever
Didn’t know where the road would take us
Never figured we’d have to fight to stay

Now we’ve caught them in the courthouse halls
Carpetbaggers carving up the heart of this land
Drawing lines on maps they’ll never have to live
Shaking hands with people we thought we knew

Chorus

They say we will never win
Just some backroad folks with dust on our boots
But thunder rolls hard on a high desert wind
And storms come fast through a valley like this

They say we’ll scatter when the pressure comes down
Thought money and law could buy this town
But this land remembers the blood and the plow
Backroad folks don’t back down

Verse 2

Some things were never meant for sale
But farming’s a hard road, always has been
Fuel gets high and the markets fall
And a lifetime’s work can lose it all

Men get older, the debts run deep
Retirement comes and the margins get steep
So they sign their names and they step aside
Hoping the valley survives the tide

Pre-Chorus

They call it growth when the skyline bends
But we know how stories like this end

Chorus

They say we will never win
Just some backroad folks with dirt on our hands
But thunder rolls hard on a high desert wind
And storms come fast through a valley like this

They say we’ll scatter when the pressure comes down
Thought money and lies could buy this town
But this land remembers the blood and the plow
Backroad folks don’t back down

Verse 3

Then they show up smiling with contracts and pay
Promising progress and a better day
White towers rising, pushing out the grouse
Steel lines cutting ridge to house
Black glass where the crops once grew
Feeding a grid, not me and you

Pre-Chorus

They call it growth when the skyline bends
But we know how stories like this end

Bridge

This ain’t just farms and empty desert
It’s county fairs and spring rain
The smell of sagebrush and cool clear nights
A lifetime of memories in the place we call home

They want our wind, our sun, our ground
Power for cities a thousand miles out
But you can’t buy roots and you can’t buy pride
And you can’t push a whole valley aside

Final Chorus

They say we will never win
Just some backroad folks with mud on our boots
But thunder rolls hard on a high desert wind
And storms come fast through a valley like this

They say we’ll scatter when the pressure comes down
Thought money and leases could take this town
But this land remembers the blood and the plow
Backroad folks don’t back down

Verse 4 - hasn’t been written…

Related

Subscribe now

Original Lyrics
(C)2026 Jeff A Pierson

Subscribe now

It’s easy to forget how unique southern Idaho is. One of the most beautiful parts of life in the Magic Valley is the open skyline. You can see for miles, watch the weather roll across the plain, and catch sunrises and sunsets that stretch across the whole horizon.

Growth will come, and change is part of life. But we should not lose sight of what makes this place special. Our valley was built around open land, working farms, and wide skies, not industrial skylines.

Wind towers on the ridges, transmission lines across the horizon, and massive data centers lighting the night sky bring noise, lights, traffic, and a constant industrial hum. Those things do not just change the landscape. They change the quiet, the darkness, and the character of the place we call home.

We should not give up the beauty of this valley just to send power to California or to feed massive AI systems that too often surveil citizens or generate pornography.

Protecting our culture means protecting the land, the views, and the way of life that made this valley what it is. And that includes the sunrises and sunsets that belong to everyone who lives here.

There are no precise public statistics that divide AI usage by purpose, but credible industry research gives a defensible picture. Studies from McKinsey, Gartner, and IDC consistently show that roughly 35 to 45 percent of commercial AI deployments are used for marketing, recommendation engines, and behavioral targeting, systems that analyze user data to influence purchasing and engagement. Surveillance technologies such as facial recognition, biometric analysis, and predictive monitoring appear in dozens of countries and likely represent roughly 5 to 15 percent of AI deployments depending on how the category is defined. Pornography is harder to quantify, but research on synthetic media from groups such as Deeptrace and Sensity has found that more than 90 percent of known deepfake videos online are pornographic. While generative pornography likely represents only a small share of total AI industry activity, the data shows that marketing, behavioral analysis, surveillance tools, and synthetic adult content are significant and well documented uses of the technology.

Share

Subscribe now

Idaho H559, should be called “The Keep the Govt out of My Pockets Bill”

Most people do not follow tax-code conformity bills for sport. They follow their paycheck, their tips, their overtime, and what is left after the government takes its share. That is why House Bill 559 matters, and why Rep. Leavitt’s yes vote makes sense to a lot of working Idahoans once the noise is stripped away.

At its core, H559 is not about Washington, D.C. It is about whether Idaho chooses to tax income that people only earn by working more.

The bill updates Idaho’s tax code to match recent federal changes. That alignment means three simple, tangible things. Tips are not taxed by the state. Overtime pay is not taxed by the state. Standard deductions are expanded, including extra relief for seniors. No new programs. No new agencies. No new forms. Just less taken.

That is why “Keep the Government Out of My Pockets” fits better than “federal conformity.”

Why this matters in real life

For a server, tips are not a bonus from the government. They are income earned hour by hour, table by table. Taxing them at the state level after the federal government has already stepped back feels less like fairness and more like double dipping.

For someone working overtime, those extra hours usually come at a cost. Less time with family. More physical or mental strain. The appeal of overtime is supposed to be that it is worth it. When the state taxes overtime more aggressively, it quietly undercuts the very incentive it claims to value: work.

For seniors, expanded standard deductions mean fewer hoops. Less paperwork. Less dependence on special carve-outs or targeted relief programs. Just a lower tax burden by default.

Leavitt’s position reflects a straightforward idea: if Idaho does not need to tax that income, it should not.

About the word “conformity”

This is where some people understandably bristle. The instinctive reaction is that aligning with federal tax rules sounds like surrender. But alignment is not the same thing as submission.

Idaho is not required to conform. The legislature chooses to. And just as importantly, the legislature can choose not to in the future. Nothing in H559 prevents Idaho from rejecting future federal changes it does not agree with. This bill does not hand over authority. It sets a baseline and keeps options open.

Refusing to align in every case, regardless of outcome, does not protect independence. It just ensures Idahoans pay more state tax even when the state gains nothing meaningful in return.

Why Leavitt’s vote makes sense

Supporting H559 is less about ideology and more about priorities.

Do you think people who work longer hours should keep more of what they earn, or less?

Do you think the tax code should be simpler, or more fragmented, costly, and confusing?

Do you think relief should come by leaving money in private hands, or by expanding programs that require applications, administrators, and ongoing oversight?

Leavitt’s yes vote lines up with the first answer in each case.

It is not a vote for Washington. It is a vote against unnecessary taxation. It is a recognition that the state does not have a moral or practical claim to every dollar simply because it can reach it.

Bottom line

H559 could have been branded in a hundred technical ways, but “The Keep the Govt Out of My Pockets Bill” captures what supporters actually care about.

Less taken from tips.
Less taken from overtime.
Less taken from seniors on fixed incomes.

That is the logic behind the bill, and that is why Leavitt’s position resonates with people who believe government should take less by default and justify itself every time it reaches further.

Share

Subscribe now

There is a reality that will never appear in a grant proposal, a press release, or a federal compliance memo, but it explains nearly all modern funding behavior: preemptive surrender.

It is the logic whispered long before the application is submitted: If we don’t take the money, someone else will. And because someone else will, usually faster, louder, and more ideologically fluent, we take it first and call the act prudence rather than retreat.

The problem is not merely that federal money is accepted, but that refusal has been reclassified as negligence. Independence is vestigial. Self-restraint is unserious. The yeoman instinct to live within one’s means and to pay one’s own way in blood and treasure has been quietly shelved as an affectation unsuited to the modern administrative age.

Preemptive surrender means conceding before the terms are even spelled out. Everyone knows the money arrives with conditions, oversight, reporting requirements, and future compliance mandates that metastasize over time. Everyone knows local discretion will be eviscerated. Yet the check is cashed anyway, because resistance is dismissed as symbolic, and symbols no longer pay salaries.

This is why the language of grants is so revealing in what it omits. You will never read, We applied because the system punishes those who try to stand apart. You will never see, We accepted these funds knowing autonomy would shrink. Instead, you get euphemism: partnership, opportunity, alignment. A cosmetic vocabulary laid over a structural surrender.

History is unsparing on this point. Republics do not usually collapse because they are suddenly conquered, but because their citizens adapt in advance. They rationalize dependency. They codify retreat. They convince themselves that survival inside the system is wisdom, not capitulation.

So when an institution says, “We’d be foolish not to take the money,” what it is really confessing, though never in writing, is exhaustion. The fight for independence is deemed too costly, too lonely, too impractical.

Preemptive surrender will never appear in grants because grants are written in the language of optimism. History, however, is written in the language of consequences.

Subscribe now

A county prosecutor’s dismissal of a retaliation complaint involving the Valley School District was not simply a legal conclusion. It was a declaration about whose political speech receives protection and whose does not.

At issue was not campaign signage or reporting technicalities. In a public school board meeting (see Dimond complaint below), officials openly acknowledged that a private vending machine owner was removed from the school because he had opposed a school levy. The explanation given on the record was blunt. If he was not going to support the school, the school would not support him. That is not a policy dispute, it is retaliation

The Jerome County Prosecuting Attorney responded by asserting that no illegal conduct had occurred, emphasizing that public officials are entitled to defend the interests of the institutions they represent, and concluding that any question of judgment should be resolved at the ballot box. Notably, the response did not contest the underlying factual allegations in the complaint, but instead treated them as lawful.

The Jerome County Prosecutor’s framing fails both legally and constitutionally.

Idaho law does not leave this question to political judgment or even to voters. Idaho Code §18-1351, the state’s official misconduct statute, prohibits a public servant from knowingly exercising official authority in excess of what is permitted by law, or from knowingly refraining from performing a duty imposed by law, when done with the intent to benefit or harm another. The statute exists precisely to prevent public power from being weaponized for retaliation, favoritism, or institutional self-protection.

A proper response would have begun by recognizing the complaint for what it was: an allegation that public officials used their authority to retaliate against protected political speech. The prosecutor should have evaluated the admitted conduct under First Amendment retaliation standards and under Idaho Code §18-1351, assessing whether the officials acted within lawful authority and whether intent was established by their own statements. If the prosecutor concluded that the legal threshold for further action was not met, that conclusion should have been explained in legal terms grounded in statutory and constitutional analysis, not dismissed with a reflexive “leave it to the voters.”

When public officials admit on the record that an adverse action was taken because a citizen opposed a ballot measure, the statute is squarely implicated. Retaliating against protected political speech is not within any lawful scope of authority. At that point, the prosecutor’s obligation is not to assess institutional loyalty, political wisdom, or electoral accountability, but to determine whether official authority was misused for an improper and unlawful purpose.

Political opposition to a ballot measure is core protected speech. When government action is taken specifically because of that opposition, the issue is no longer discretion, institutional advocacy, or political judgment. It is First Amendment retaliation. More specifically, it is viewpoint discrimination, the most disfavored and strictly prohibited form of government action under constitutional law.

Viewpoint discrimination occurs when the government penalizes speech not because of neutral criteria, but because it opposes the speaker’s position. It allows those in power to reward ideological allies and punish dissenters while pretending to enforce neutral rules. Courts have been unequivocal. Government may not condition access, benefits, or tolerance on political loyalty.

Here, a private business owner lost a commercial relationship with a public institution solely because of his opposition to a levy. That is a textbook unconstitutional condition. The benefit was withdrawn because of viewpoint.

The gravity of that retaliation becomes clearer when contrasted with how the county treated other participants in the same civic dispute.

Independent reporting confirms that Dean Dimond, a Jerome County farmer, also opposed the levy, using homemade, low-cost signage and ordinary civic advocacy. Idaho Education News documented that Dimond’s opposition drew campaign finance scrutiny despite minimal expenditures. The reporting confirmed that Dimond ultimately filed expenditure paperwork defensively in response to enforcement pressure, not because of significant political spending, but to shield himself and other levy opponents from further scrutiny.

Additional reporting by the Idaho Freedom Foundation placed these events into a single timeline. Rachel Hazelip documented that levy opposition was followed by escalating scrutiny, legal mechanisms, and adverse actions directed at those who opposed the measure. Her analysis raised a direct and unavoidable question. Whether government authority was being used neutrally, or whether it was being applied selectively to suppress dissent.

Political Targeting? The Valley School District’s Purported Vendetta Against Levy Opponents Rachel Hazelip, Idaho Freedom Foundation

Related post: When Employees Become a Captive Political Audience - Sen. Glenneda Zuiderveld

Public statements reinforce that concern. In a recorded interview published by the Idaho Freedom Foundation, Dean Dimond stated that after opposing the levy, he was treated like a lawbreaker for engaging in ordinary political speech. That statement aligns with documented scrutiny, defensive filings, and the broader pattern of pressure described in contemporaneous reporting.

None of this context was meaningfully addressed when the prosecutor dismissed the retaliation complaint.

Instead, the response reframed the issue as one of institutional defense and political accountability at the ballot box. Elections do not remedy constitutional violations. Citizens targeted between elections have no protection at the polls when government power is already being applied against them. The contrast is unavoidable.

When a private citizen opposed a levy, enforcement scrutiny moved quickly. When public officials admitted retaliatory conduct on the record, the machinery of investigation stopped. That asymmetry is not accidental. It is the hallmark of viewpoint discrimination.

This pattern was documented earlier in my own reporting, titled “The Politics of Intimidation in Small Town Idaho.” What makes this case distinct is not merely the presence of pressure, but the open acknowledgment of retaliation and the subsequent refusal to investigate it.

This is not about whether the levy was sound policy. It is about whether government power was used to punish dissent and shield aligned actors from scrutiny. When government treats political opposition as disloyalty rather than participation, the warning signs are not subtle, they are structural.

And when those warning signs are met not with investigation but with dismissal, the message to citizens is unmistakable, speak carefully, or pay the price.

From my perspective, the pattern visible here reflects a deeper institutional failure inside Jerome County government. Decisions appear to be less about faithful application of law or neutral policy enforcement, and more about picking winners and losers based on personal opinions, convenience, and institutional laziness. When scrutiny is applied aggressively to private citizens who dissent, while admissions of retaliation by officials are excused or ignored, governance drifts away from the rule of law and toward arbitrary power. That shift should concern anyone who expects public authority to be exercised with discipline, restraint, and equal treatment.

Share

Subscribe now

There is a gap between many Republican voters in Idaho and a growing number of the Republicans elected to represent them, and that gap cannot be explained away as disagreements over tone, tactics, or incremental policy differences. It is foolish to pretend that both sides of the gap are still equally Republican. What voters increasingly encounter is a governing posture that defends agencies, protects projects, and shields bureaucratic priorities with greater urgency than it defends the citizens who granted those officials authority in the first place. This is not a simple misunderstanding, and it is not an accident of complex governance. It is an intentional inversion of citizen-first authority, and it has a name… RINO, at least that is the shorthand version, but not the word I choose to use.

“RINO,” Republican in name only, is a common term used by liberty-conscious Republicans to describe this drift. I prefer “Institutional Authoritarians,” because the defining feature is allegiance to the institution rather than fidelity to the citizen, or even to the party platform. When Republican officials spend their energy justifying agency expansion, insulating regulators from scrutiny, and treating large industrial projects as presumptively legitimate simply because they have cleared administrative hurdles, they invert the conservative premise of government. Authority becomes a tool to suppress transparency and citizen participation. It becomes something to be preserved rather than something to be restrained, and citizens are reduced to managed stakeholders rather than rightful principals.

The individuals I am describing have long been beholden to the donor class, energy, medical, and education interests. Apart from donor influence, the more visible and consistent pattern is institutional loyalty. Institutional describes the shift clearly, because loyalty migrates away from the people and toward legislative bodies, regulatory frameworks, party leadership, and corporate interests that benefit from proximity to power. These structures are treated as if they possess inherent value, as if continuity of process were itself a moral good. The moment an official defends the state apparatus because it exists, because it is established, or because insiders insist it is “how things are done,” he has already abandoned the conservative claim that government is a tool under law rather than an authority unto itself.

If institutionalism describes the loyalty and source of “power,” authoritarianism describes how control is maintained. Authority that ceases to justify itself to the people begins to demand obedience instead. Dissent is reclassified as disorder, scrutiny is described as hostility, and public resistance is framed as sabotage or uncivil behavior. This form of authoritarianism does not arrive with marching boots or explicit threats. It arrives with procedural language, feasibility studies, and the insistence that decisions are effectively settled. It manages compliance and tells the complaining citizen to take the issue to court, if you can afford it. In other words, go pound sand.

The consequences are visible across Idaho. Voters watch so-called Republicans endorse mega-projects that carve up farmland, burden rural infrastructure, and permanently reshape communities, not because those projects command genuine public consent, but because agencies have approved them and capital has been mobilized. Citizens have observed growing tolerance for mechanisms that allow government or corporate ventures to impose themselves on unwilling landowners under the banner of inevitability. Citizens see legislators defend agency authority more aggressively than private property rights, revealing whose interests now command their loyalty. While reasoned legislators have provided some victories to Idaho citizens, many voters still feel betrayed by officials who are willing to tolerate the possibility of mask and vaccine mandates, as well as sexually explicit material in schools, while claiming to act in the public interest.

In my district, Representative Jack Nelsen’s record has come to symbolize this drift, not because of alleged motives, but because of observable patterns in votes, alignments, and public posture. Multiple Republican central committees formally censured him for supporting positions that residents viewed as direct intrusions on local sovereignty and as deference to bureaucratic and industrial priorities over citizen objection (RELEASE: Why the Lincoln County and Blaine County Republican Central Committees Censured Legislative District 26B Representative Jack Nelsen, 2025).

The defenders of institutional power have become comfortable criticizing and marginalizing citizen concerns with labels such as radicals, keyboard warriors, nuisances, and worse. This posture is not conservative, regardless of the language used to defend it, because it mirrors the institutional reflex that sustains all authoritarian systems. In every such case, the institution demands loyalty, dissent is treated as destabilizing, and natural rights are subordinated to administrative stability.

A constitutional republic, and the Republican ideals that are supposed to protect that republic, rest on a foundation diametrically opposed to institutionalism and authoritarianism. Rights precede government, authority is conditional, and the institution is always subordinate to the citizen. Conservative governance either begins here or it is not conservative at all. Sometimes, to its own political inconvenience, true conservatism welcomes scrutiny and confrontation, and restrains itself rather than consolidating power, remembering that dignity lies in the people, not in the state.

Idaho voters increasingly see representatives who have abandoned this ordering. Many lawmakers defend agencies in ways that weaken meaningful oversight and reduce transparency. For example, an Associated Press report described a bill that would have moved Idaho’s Office of Performance Evaluations under the control of the Republican-majority Legislative Council and eliminated a bipartisan oversight committee structure that had governed it.

On eminent domain, in 2015, the Idaho House passed a bill to remove a city’s ability to use eminent domain for certain projects such as trails and greenways. But the continuing fear among many rural communities is that other forms of condemnation pressure remain available for large industrial and infrastructure efforts, and that the practical effect is still coercion of unwilling landowners.

These are not isolated disputes or legitimate factions within a party. They are expressions of a governing mindset that treats institutional loyalty as more important than constitutional fidelity. That mindset is the problem. It is the reason citizens are treated as obstacles to be managed rather than principals to be served.

The remedy is not radical, but it is uncompromising. We must fight to maintain a system grounded in the understanding that institutions exist for the citizen, authority is never self-justifying, and public scrutiny is not an irritant but a safeguard. Policies must account for certain realities: industrial projects that disrupt communities and private property demand government resistance proportional to their reach, eminent domain must be extraordinary, not routine, natural rights cannot be bartered away for administrative efficiency, and constitutional limits bind every official, every agency, and every party, without exception.

Republicans and conservatives who love liberty are not asking to burn institutions down. They are asking those institutions to remember what they are for. The mandarins who hold institutional authoritarian views must be held accountable. Citizens cannot be expected to serve as human ballast for a system that has forgotten whom it exists to serve. Citizens are entitled to representatives who defend liberty before process and citizens before systems. If these institutional defenders continue to call themselves Republicans while governing as custodians of bureaucracy and protected interests, voters will eventually dispense with the pretense and judge them accurately, not as guardians of liberty, but as caretakers of an apparatus that threatens their liberty, their property, and their conscience.

Subscribe now

References

(2025). RELEASE: Why the Lincoln County and Blaine County Republican Central Committees Censured Legislative District 26B Representative Jack Nelsen. https://gemstatechronicle.com/2025/03/release-why-the-lincoln-county-and-blaine-county-republican-central-committees-censured-legislative-district-26b-representative-jack-nelsen/

(2025). A long trend: How the Idaho Legislature has removed local governments’ powers. https://idahocapitalsun.com/2025/04/14/a-long-trend-how-the-idaho-legislature-has-removed-local-governments-powers/

(2015). Lawmakers OK bill banning use of eminent domain by cities. https://idahobusinessreview.com/2015/03/17/lawmakers-ok-bill-banning-use-of-eminent-domain-by-cities/

(2023). Idaho bill would move state audit agency under GOP control. https://apnews.com/article/d683545c20f34b6e7945f47a8a763f5b

Related articles:

Subscribe now

Letters from Vox Humilia

I. Vox Humilia to Communem on the Delegation of Conscience

Dearest Communem,

I write to you with seriousness and with respect for the role you hold in every free society. Far too many among us have surrendered their moral judgment to Decidens and his officials and institutions. They believe conscience is something that can be handed over, as if the burden of discernment were too heavy for the ordinary citizen. But a delegated conscience becomes a silenced conscience. When people give their judgment to others, they give their liberty with it.

No official can see on your behalf. No party can think on your behalf. No authority can relieve you of the duty to distinguish right from wrong. The Law teaches this. History confirms it. A Republic survives only when citizens judge truth for themselves rather than waiting for the powerful to explain it.

If you remain silent, others will speak in your place. If you close your eyes, others will sell you their version of sight. If you surrender your conscience, you lose not only freedom but dignity. A people who give away their judgment give away themselves.

I speak as a humble voice outside the gates, urging you to guard the conscience that is yours and cannot be replaced. Do not allow your discernment to become an instrument of someone else’s ambition. See for yourself. Judge for yourself. Stand for yourself. A people remain free only when they refuse to abandon the responsibility that makes them free.

In truth and in hope,
Vox Humilia

II. Vox Humilia to Decidens Regarding Master Umbraticus

Decidens,

I am pleading with you. The path you have chosen with Master Umbraticus is already wounding dearest Communem, and you know it. Every arrangement you make, every quiet deal, every burden you shift onto his shoulders cuts deeper into a man who has almost nothing left to give. Communem carries far more than you do, and he carries it without complaint, but even the strongest back breaks when enough weight is forced upon it. You are pushing him toward that collapse.

And understand this with absolute clarity. When Communem collapses, you collapse with him. You imagine you stand above him, insulated by Master Umbraticus and his coin. You imagine you will keep your position, your comfort, your authority. You will not. The moment dearest Communem falls, everything that depends on him falls with him, and that includes you. You will be spent in the same dust, emptied of the very things you believed Master Umbraticus would secure for you.

Master Umbraticus will not share your ruin. He never shares the ruin he creates. He feeds on it. He will step over you, as he stepped over the last man, and find another to flatter, another to finance, another to bind. He will survive because he risks nothing. You risk everything. And you are wagering the life and strength of dearest Communem as if he were expendable.

This is your warning.

End this before the collapse arrives. Master Umbraticus is not your ally. He is a shadow that fattens on the destruction of men like you, and he has already begun his work.

Vox Humilia

III. Vox Humilia to Umbraticus: What Is Done in Secret Will Not Remain a Secret

Master Umbraticus,

I see the work you do in silence, the slow tightening of your claims, the way you bind men by what you call generosity. You believe yourself hidden because you operate in shadow, but nothing concealed remains beyond naming. You feed on dependence. You thrive on the weakness you engineer. You place your coin where it will corrupt, and then you call the corruption loyalty.

You have wrapped yourself around Decidens, presenting yourself as benefactor, guide, and friend. But you are only measuring him, waiting for the moment when your support becomes the tool by which you claim him. You do not want repayment. You want possession. You want control. You want a conscience that no longer resists you. You want authority over a soul you did not create.

And you wound dearest Communem with every step. You drain him to strengthen your hold on the man you hope to master. You treat his labor, his patience, and his burdens as fuel for your ambition. You bleed him so another will feel indebted to you. You are fattening yourself on the quiet suffering of the one who has carried more than either of you will ever confess.

Your shadow depends on silence. I deny you that silence. I name you openly. I strip the veil from your intentions. I refuse to grant you the darkness you require to thrive.

You imagine yourself the master. In truth, you are sustained only by what others fear to confront. When they stop fearing, you stop ruling.

Vox Humilia

IV. Master Umbraticus to Decidens: The First Whisper

Decidens,

You must ignore Vox Humilia. He speaks from weakness, not insight. He rejects the order that lifts men like you. You stand where you stand because I raised you there. You move as you move because I cleared the path before you. That is not bondage. That is structure. There is no ascent without allegiance. There is no authority without obedience to the source of it. This is the truth Humilia resents because he has no place within it.

As for dearest Communem, stop treating him as anything more than what he is. He is not a partner. He is not a strategist. He is not a rival for your conscience. Communem is a beast of burden. His strength lies in labor, not in vision. His value is in carrying weight without questioning it.

Leave him to his duties. They keep him docile. They keep him predictable. They keep him useful.

Stand with me. Obey what I teach. Your future depends on it.

Master Umbraticus

V. Vox Humilia to Decidens: The First Plea

Dear Decidens,

You were given authority for the sake of others, not for your comfort or reputation. Yet the signs of your departure from duty have become visible. You have drifted toward the pride that corrupts men like Fastidiosus, though you do not yet see it. You have hesitated when clarity was required. You have chosen self-preservation where truth demanded courage. A leader begins to fall not when he stumbles, but when he stops listening to the voice within that once guided him toward justice.

You are in the act of falling. You have not yet struck the ground, but the descent has begun. There is still time to turn. There is still time to remember the duty that shaped you before comfort and fear began their work.

Look honestly at the harm that avoidance has caused. Look at Communem whose quiet strength once steadied you. Leadership is not proven in applause but in burdens carried and truth upheld.

Rise, Decidens, before the fall is complete.

Vox Humilia

VI. Vox Humilia to Communem: Rise and Remember

Dear Communem,

You have carried burdens that were never yours alone. They mistook your patience for passivity and your endurance for emptiness. They forgot that you are not merely labor or silence or support. You are the foundation on which every one of them stands.

Your voice has been quiet, but not dead. Your judgment has been dismissed, but not erased. Your dignity has been wounded, but not lost. There is a strength in you that no official gave you and no shadow can take away. It was placed there by Nature’s God and it still burns.

Lift your head. See clearly the men who fed on your exhaustion and called it order. Reclaim the conscience they hoped you would surrender. You are not their beast of burden. You are the citizen, the measure of their legitimacy, the one they fear the moment you remember your authority.

Rise, Communem. Something within you has already begun rising without your permission.

Vox Humilia

VII. Vox Humilia to Fastidiosus and Master Umbraticus: Fidelis Is Rising

Fastidiosus, Master Umbraticus,

You believed the city belonged to you. You believed Communem would remain bowed forever. You believed Decidens would never resist your pull. You believed your influence would stretch unchallenged across every corner of silence.

You were wrong.

Fidelis is rising.

He comes with authority and light. Light does not bend. Light does not flatter. Light does not negotiate with shadows. Fastidiosus, your pride will crack. Umbraticus, your darkness will scatter. Fidelis rises to restore what you drained.

The city you claimed will stand in judgment of you by morning.

Vox Humilia

VIII. Vox Humilia to Fastidiosus and Master Umbraticus: You Missed What Was Under Your Feet

Fastidiosus, Master Umbraticus,

You expected a distant champion. You prepared for a stranger. You did not prepare for the truth.

Fidelis has arrived, and Fidelis is Communem reborn.

The man you dismissed now stands upright. The man you exploited now sees clearly. The man you weakened now rises with a strength neither of you imagined. The authority you claimed was yours alone belongs to him. It always did. You merely obscured it.

Communem is not the man you left behind. He carries light because he has lived in shadow. He carries strength because he has borne weight. He carries authority because he endured what you sought to break.

He is no longer yours to use.

Vox Humilia

IX. Vox Humilia Libertas Ordinata to Lector

Dear Lector,

By now you should understand the truth. Within you live Master Umbraticus, Fastidiosus, Decidens, dearest Communem, and Fidelis. You are each of them as you choose, as you act, as you live.

It began with your heart. It manifested as a thought, then a choice. Your choices became actions. Your actions became habits and your habits became your character.

Your eternal friend,
Vox Humilia Libertas Ordinata

Share

Explanation of the Letters

A Critique of Corruption, Misused Authority, and Forgotten Liberty

The Vox Humilia Letters are an allegory that exposes how elected officials, institutions, and citizens fall into patterns that destroy the foundations of a free society. The central theme is simple. Liberty collapses when conscience is surrendered, when officials forget whom they serve, and when special interests replace the people as the true voice of government.

The story unfolds through symbolic characters, each representing a condition of the civic soul.

Communem is the ordinary citizen. He begins patient, steady, and overburdened, carrying responsibilities that others take for granted. He is not weak. He is worn down by systems that consume his strength while denying his dignity. His transformation into Fidelis is the heart of the cycle. Fidelis is Communem awakened to his own authority, conscience, and responsibility. This rebirth reflects the truth at the center of republican government. The citizen is the source of legitimacy. Once awakened, he cannot be used or dismissed.

Decidens is the elected official who begins with good intentions but allows compromise and self-preservation to hollow out his duty. He speaks the right language and believes he understands liberty, but he submits himself to those who promise influence, comfort, or safety (Today, we often call these RINOs). He becomes vulnerable to the shadows because he no longer listens to conscience. His drift toward Fastidiosus represents the moral descent that occurs when leaders forget whom they serve.

Fastidiosus is the proud official who treats the citizen as inferior. He believes that authority flows upward to him rather than downward from the people. He may be redeemable, but only through confrontation. Fidelis must hold him accountable. The story insists that pride in leadership does not reform itself. It must be checked by the awakened citizen. In the real world, Fastidiosus may be approached, but only with caution and distrust, until he proves through humility and accountability that he has truly changed.

Master Umbraticus is the corporate power, the special interest, the financier, the manipulator. He thrives in secrecy, dependence, and the weakness of others. He does not believe in liberty because liberty threatens his control. He binds officials with favors, burdens the public with unseen costs, and hides behind the illusion that he is indispensable. His role in the cycle is not redeemable. He cannot be corrected because he does not recognize any authority above himself. He is the shadow that lives on compromise, fear, and moral neglect.

Vox Humilia is the quiet voice that calls each character back to natural law, conscience, and ordered liberty. This voice does not coerce. It warns, pleads, exposes, and illuminates. Vox represents the internal and eternal reminder that freedom is not sustained by power but by obedience to truth. When Vox speaks to Communem, it awakens strength. When it speaks to Decidens, it confronts drift and fear. When it speaks to Fastidiosus, it unmasks pride. When it speaks to Umbraticus, it strips away the secrecy that sustains corruption. Outside of allegory, Master Umbraticus cannot be approached at all, because any relationship with him becomes corruption, captivity, or deceit.

The letters reveal how politicians often use the right words while misunderstanding liberty itself. They believe rhetoric is enough. They believe technical compliance replaces moral duty. They believe the appearance of loyalty to the people compensates for the reality of loyalty to donors, corporations, or factions. The cycle exposes this deception and calls them to account.

The allegory is also a critique of the relationship between elected officials and the corporate and financial powers that seek to control them. Master Umbraticus is not simply a villain. He is the embodiment of influence without responsibility. His presence in the story reflects a deeper truth. Special interests do not corrupt free societies because they are powerful. They corrupt free societies because the citizen forgets his own standing, and the official forgets his own duty.

Fidelis is the answer to this problem. His emergence represents the moment when the citizen stands upright, remembers his authority, and confronts those who have misused their roles. He holds Fastidiosus accountable. He exposes Umbraticus. He forces Decidens to face his drift. He restores the order that has been lost.

The cycle ends with a reminder to the reader. These characters are not only political figures. They live within every person. Each individual contains the capacity for drift, pride, manipulation, burden, awakening, and reform. The letters are therefore both a political critique and a moral mirror. Ordered liberty depends on the conscience of every citizen. When that conscience is surrendered, the society falls. When that conscience is awakened, the society rises.

The letters of Vox Humilia are written to remind the reader that liberty is not preserved by institutions. It is preserved by individuals who see, judge, speak, and act according to the truth that made them free. The smallest compromise is deadly to Liberty.

Share

Notes from the Author (The TLDR)

Liberty and Ordered Liberty

I want to remind the reader what liberty truly is and why it cannot survive without a moral structure. Liberty is the condition in which a human being is free to act according to reason, conscience, and the responsibilities given by Nature’s God, without coercion from those who hold power. It is not license or self-indulgence. It is the rightful sphere of personal autonomy in which individuals pursue the good, speak the truth, exercise judgment, and order their lives according to moral law. Liberty requires the absence of illegitimate force and the presence of internal restraint. Without self-governance, liberty collapses into chaos. Without limits on authority, liberty collapses into tyranny. True liberty ennobles because it binds the soul to responsibility and calls every person to confront falsehood, resist corruption, and hold power accountable.

Ordered liberty is the necessary structure that makes liberty durable. It is the condition in which liberty and law work together to protect human dignity, preserve justice, and restrain both tyranny and anarchy. It recognizes that freedom exists within a framework established by natural law and sustained by just authority. Ordered liberty rests on three pillars. The citizen must govern himself by conscience. The law must govern rulers so that power is restrained. Authority must exist to prevent the strong from devouring the weak. This is not authoritarian. It is the architecture that guards liberty from destruction. Ordered liberty rejects both unbounded freedom, which dissolves communities, and centralized control, which smothers conscience. It teaches that obedience to just law is a form of freedom because it protects the moral space in which virtue can grow.

This is why Vox Humilia speaks. This is why Fidelis rises. This is why Fastidiosus must be confronted and why Master Umbraticus must be exposed. Liberty cannot survive in silence, and ordered liberty cannot survive without citizens who remember who they are. When authority violates natural law, it is the duty of the citizen to resist, speak, correct, and hold the line. The final lesson of the letters is therefore simple. A free society depends not on the purity of its rulers but on the awakening of its people, for liberty is preserved only by those who understand it, and ordered liberty endures only when they are willing to defend it.

Historical and Literary Basis for the Characters

The Vox Humilia cycle draws from a long tradition of moral storytelling in which political failure, civic corruption, and the awakening of conscience are expressed through symbolic figures. These characters are not inventions without lineage. They stand in the shadow of Scripture and classical literature, using well-known archetypes to illuminate how societies lose their way and how they recover.

Each character embodies a recognizable moral type. Each mirrors a pattern seen in Israel’s history, in the ancient epics, in the tragic stage, and in the philosophical dialogues. Their actions, failures, and transformations reflect the deep human struggle between corruption and conscience, power and humility, truth and manipulation. The parallels below reveal the roots that shaped their creation.

Historical Character Types

• Communem is the ordinary Israelite who groans under burdens he did not choose, like the faithful remnant in Judges who waited for deliverance but had forgotten their own strength.

• Fidelis is Nehemiah, the awakened and resolute reformer who rises from among the people to rebuild what the proud and the corrupt have destroyed.

• Decidens is Saul, a man who began with promise but drifted into fear, half obedience, and a need for approval that hollowed out his calling.

• Fastidiosus is Rehoboam, the ruler who treats the people with contempt, multiplies burdens, and believes authority exists to magnify himself.

• Master Umbraticus is Jezebel or the Pharisees, a figure who manipulates power from the shadows, binds consciences, corrupts leaders, and cannot be redeemed because he refuses truth.

• Vox Humilia is the still small voice heard by Elijah, the quiet call of conscience that speaks judgment, warning, and hope without force or spectacle.

Classical Literature Characters Types

• Communem is Odysseus’ long-suffering crew or the Athenian commoner in Pericles’ age, the ordinary man who bears every burden while those above him speak of virtue they do not practice.

• Fidelis is Antigone, the awakened conscience who stands upright, defies illegitimate power, and restores moral order by refusing to bow to corrupted authority.

• Decidens is Aeneas in his moments of hesitation, a man with duty in his hands who falters under pressure and is tempted to abandon what he was meant to protect.

• Fastidiosus is Creon, the proud ruler who mistakes his position for wisdom, demands submission from those he should serve, and falls because he cannot recognize his own arrogance.

• Master Umbraticus is Odysseus’ Circe or the seducing sophist, a figure who corrupts through gifts, flattery, and entanglement, creating dependence so subtle that the victim believes it is loyalty.

• Vox Humilia is the voice of Socrates’ daimonion, the quiet inner warning that calls rulers and citizens back to truth, conscience, and moral restraint when the city has abandoned wisdom.

© Copyright 2025, All Rights Reserved, Jeff A Pierson

Share

Subscribe now

Author’s Note

This article is not a detailed legal analysis of Economic Development Groups, nor is it a technical assessment of every statute or regulatory framework that applies to them. It is a short, plain, direct evaluation grounded in the principles of liberty, transparency, and local self-governance that conservatives and watchdogs have always defended. The purpose is to examine how these socialized organizations (see glossary) operate in practice, how they influence public power outside public oversight, and how their structure conflicts with the expectations of a free people. Readers seeking formal legal opinions should consult qualified counsel, but the civic principles at stake are within the reach of every citizen and require no specialized training to understand.

An Economic Development Group (EDG) is a nonprofit corporation that presents itself as a partner in local prosperity. In practice, an EDG is a private body that performs government-like functions without government accountability. They describe themselves as facilitators of business growth, but they operate as regional planners, grant brokers, and agenda-setters who shape development across counties without public consent or public oversight.

How EDGs Receive Federal and State Funds Legally

Economic development groups receive public funding through a simple but powerful mechanism. They register as nonprofit corporations and apply for grants often intended for cities, counties, and regional planning bodies. Because many federal and state programs classify nonprofits as eligible intermediaries, EDGs insert themselves into the funding stream that would normally be handled by elected government.

They routinely receive money from and through the U.S. and Idaho governments, including workforce development programs and various infrastructure funds. Once approved, the funds are transferred to the private nonprofit. The EDG then uses this money to draft regional strategies, finance projects, operate loan programs, or promote targeted industries.

How They Function

Economic development groups operate as a quiet form of economic planning. They direct public resources through nonprofit structures, determine where growth will occur, choose which industries deserve priority, and shift financial risk (see risk transfer in glossary) from private investors onto taxpayers. This is socialized development. It uses public means to shape private outcomes while avoiding the constitutional limits that bind public institutions.

They are not elected. They are not required to follow open meeting laws. They are not subject to the checks that limit public power. Yet they sit at the center of decisions involving industrial parks, highway corridors, infrastructure grants, tax incentives, and corporate recruitment. Their influence flows through private channels even though they guide the future of public communities. This is why liberty advocates regard them as shadow governments.

To understand the danger, EDGs must be considered alongside the principles of a constitutional republic.

Constitutionality vs. Constitutional Principles

Both the U.S. and Idaho Constitutions limit what the government may do. EDGs avoid this framework because they sit outside the structure of government itself. They are not created by statute. They do not exercise police powers. They do not regulate anyone directly. Their private status keeps them outside the narrow legal definition of unconstitutional actors.

But their legal distance from public office does not reduce their public influence. EDGs behave like public institutions without being bound by public restraints. They operate in a space of constitutional evasion rather than direct violation, exercising influence without accountability and authority without true consent of the governed.

Delegation Without Representation

The Founders rejected any system in which public power could expand beyond its carefully defined boundaries. Madison warned, “Power is of an encroaching nature, and ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.” The meaning is plain. The government and its subdivisions must remain within constitutional boundaries. Allowing private corporations to conduct public business in place of government was never part of the constitutional order.

These blurred lines go far beyond normal vendor relationships. They create public-private partnerships that the framers never intended and that state constitutions were never designed to regulate.

EDGs are unelected, and communities almost never vote to establish them. Yet when they receive public funds, write regional strategies, influence infrastructure, and coordinate multi-county policy, they perform functions indistinguishable from government planning bodies. They direct long-term development while standing outside the constitutional framework that restrains public authority.

An election cannot remove them. Open meeting laws do not bind them. They answer to no electorate and no constitutional checks. While some may argue that these arrangements provide the needed flexibility or operational efficiency to address development needs, the absence of traditional public oversight mechanisms raises significant concerns. Although this does not violate the Constitution on paper, it directly undermines local self-governance. It allows public power to flow through private boards that the people never granted legitimacy.

Public Money, Private Control

State and federal law require public funds to be managed through mechanisms that ensure accountability. Idaho statutes, such as Section 67-450B, require independent audits for government entities and taxing districts. Nonprofits that receive public funds are not subject to these rules. They are not public agencies. They are not required to provide the same reporting or submit to the same scrutiny.

When nonprofits act as intermediaries for grants, direct public investment, or publicly backed lending, they assume the role of government without being subject to government oversight. This creates an accountability gap. Idaho already struggles to track spending within legitimate government programs, including federal funds. It is even harder to track how private nonprofits use public resources. The public has no guaranteed transparency, no clear chain of accountability, and no reliable way to verify how or where taxpayer-backed money is ultimately spent.

This does not violate the Constitution in the technical sense. Still, it violates the consent of the governed, the separation between public power and private interest, and the basic principle that government must not shift its core responsibilities to bodies the public cannot reach.

Shadow Governance

Shadow governance poses the greatest threat to EDGs. Their influence expands behind the scenes, not through open debate. The U.S. and Idaho Constitutions were not designed for systems in which private boards shape the direction of local communities without public authority or accountability. The Founders expected governmental power to be visible, knowable, and answerable. EDGs invert that expectation.

Local development is now shaped by boards no one elected, plans no one approved, priorities written by grant-writers, and regional agendas drafted by private organizations. Taxation, infrastructure, and land use are influenced by groups with no public authority.

They shape agendas before citizens hear anything. By the time a proposal reaches a public meeting, the EDG has already coordinated with agencies, secured funding, lined up industry support, and presented the project as a finished concept. Elected officials become the final stamp rather than the first decision-makers.

This creates a decision-making pipeline that never enters the constitutional process. The public cannot intervene because the real decisions were made long before any hearing. EDGs act as the architects of development, while the public sees only the final stage, where questions are dismissed as obstruction and due diligence is treated as interference.

This is not illegal. It is a structural circumvention of republican government. It replaces self-government with nonprofit-directed regionalism. It contradicts the architecture of constitutional liberty.

Socialized Development Without Safeguards

When EDGs direct growth, control public funds, and choose winners and losers, they act as undeclared regulators. Constitutional principles require that economic regulation be public, reviewable, tied to elected authority, bound to due process, and limited by law.

EDGs can bypass many of these safeguards expected of government organizations. They erode constitutional governance even if they do not violate it in the legal sense.

Hitting the High Points

• They are not unconstitutional as a matter of law. They are unconstitutional in effect.

• They create public outcomes through private power.

• They steer development without the consent of the governed.
  They blend state power with private influence in ways the Constitution was designed to prevent.

• They weaken self-government by shifting real decision-making away from the people.

• That is why liberty advocates view them as dangerous. Not because they openly violate the Constitution, but because they quietly hollow it out.

Questions Remain

The fundamental question is this: why does planning and funding not occur through normal government operations? If development is genuinely a public priority, it should be carried out by elected bodies bound by constitutional limits. The deeper issue is that most money funneled through EDGs is a form of socialized economics. Once the government moves from protecting markets to manufacturing outcomes, the line between legitimate public purpose and engineered demand becomes indistinct.

This raises another, more fundamental question. Is the funding legitimate at all, regardless of the EDG? If a project cannot stand on its own without subsidies or requires grant writers, intermediaries, and behind-the-scenes negotiations to exist, it is not market-driven development. It is a political development. It is the government attempting to create economic outcomes that communities and markets did not choose.

That problem exists before the EDG even enters the picture. The EDG becomes the vehicle through which these socialized funds are distributed and the agenda is advanced. The real question is whether the public ever consented to this model of development in the first place.

Share

Glossary

• Consent of the Governed
  A foundational principle is that legitimate political authority arises only from the voluntary agreement of the people subject to it. It holds that government power is not self-generated, not inherited, and not presumed. It must be granted. In American constitutional thought, this principle means that all public authority must originate in institutions created, controlled, and changeable by the people through elections or constitutional amendment. Decisions that affect a community are legitimate only when they are made by representatives chosen by that community and under rules the people have authorized. When power is exercised by bodies that citizens did not elect, cannot oversee, and cannot remove, it fails the test of consent, even if it falls within technical legal boundaries.

• Economic Development Groups (EDGs)
  Nonprofit or quasi-public organizations that describe themselves as facilitators of business growth. In practice, they often operate as shadow governments, directing regional priorities, influencing the flow of public funds, and shaping zoning and infrastructure decisions outside democratic oversight. Their position allows them to wield public power without constitutional accountability.

• Local Consent
  The principle that decisions affecting a community’s land use, infrastructure, taxation, and growth must originate with the people who live there. Consent is expressed through public hearings, local ordinances, zoning safeguards, and direct participation in civic processes. When EDGs pressure cities or counties to streamline or eliminate these processes, they erode the consent that legitimizes local government.

• Nonprofit Corporation
  Federal Definition of a Nonprofit Organization
  Under federal law, a nonprofit organization is a private entity that is organized and operated for purposes other than generating profit for owners or shareholders, and whose net earnings cannot benefit any private individual. The core federal definition appears in the Internal Revenue Code and in federal grant regulations.

  • Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 501(c))
    A nonprofit organization is an entity “organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes…and no part of the net earnings…inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.”

  • Federal Grant Regulations (2 C.F.R. § 200.1)
    The Code of Federal Regulations defines a nonprofit organization as:
    “A nonprofit corporation, trust, association, cooperative, or other organization that is operated primarily for scientific, educational, service, charitable, or similar purposes…in which no part of the organization’s net earnings inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.”

  • Key elements across federal definitions:

    • It is private, not governmental.

    • It may be a corporation, a trust, an association, or a similar entity.

    • It must pursue nonprofit purposes (charitable, educational, scientific, etc.).

    • Profits cannot be distributed to private individuals.

    • It may still receive federal or state funds, act as a contractor, or administer grant programs.

    • It is not subject to constitutional obligations unless performing an exclusive government function.

• Risk Transfer

  Risk transfer is the process by which the financial, operational, or economic risks that should belong to private developers or investors are shifted onto the public. Instead of bearing the consequences of their own decisions, companies, developers, or regional planners move the exposure to taxpayers through grants, subsidies, tax incentives, or publicly backed loans.

  In the context of Economic Development Groups, risk transfer happens when:

  • Public money pays for the infrastructure that a private project needs

  • Government grants insulate a company from start-up losses

  • EDGs use taxpayer-backed funds to guarantee private loans

  • residents assume the long-term cost of a project while private actors capture the short-term gains

  The private sector keeps the profits. The public absorbs the downside.

  Risk transfer allows politically favored projects to advance even when they cannot survive in a free market. It undermines accountability, distorts decision-making, and forces citizens to subsidize ventures they never consented to. In a constitutional republic, the burden of private investment belongs to private actors, not to taxpayers who had no voice in approving the arrangement.

• Shadow Governance
  The exercise of public-like power by private or quasi-public bodies that lack the accountability structures required of government. Shadow governance occurs when organizations plan development, direct public funds, influence regulations, or steer infrastructure while remaining outside electoral reach. It undermines republican self-government by placing authority in institutions that do not answer to the people.

• Socialized Economy
  A socialized economy is one in which government or quasi-government organizations, rather than markets, determine economic direction. Instead of individuals, families, and businesses deciding where to invest, expand, or innovate, the state (or its designated proxies) guides development through subsidies, grants, mandates, incentives, and bureaucratic planning. The defining feature is not whether private firms exist, but whether political decisions rather than free-market forces shape economic outcomes.

• Socialized Organization
  A socialized organization is a private or quasi-private entity that operates using public resources, public authority, or public risk while remaining outside the constitutional and electoral controls that bind actual government institutions. It behaves like a government arm but is shielded by its private corporate status. Its power is derived from public money, political access, and government delegation rather than market competition or voter consent.

• Socialized Planning
  Socialized planning is the practice of directing economic or community development through government-controlled or government-funded mechanisms rather than through voluntary market decisions. Instead of allowing individuals, businesses, and local communities to determine growth organically, socialized planning relies on centralized strategies, public subsidies, grant-funded priorities, and bureaucratic coordination to shape outcomes.
  

  It assumes that planners, agencies, or quasi-governmental partners know better than the public where investment should go, which industries should expand, and how a region should develop. Even when executed through nonprofits or “public-private partnerships,” the controlling force is political rather than market-based.
  

  In practice, socialized planning blurs the lines between public power and private influence. Decisions about land use, infrastructure, industry recruitment, and long-term regional priorities are made through grant programs, planning documents, and administrative committees rather than through local consent or market demand. It shifts authority away from citizens and toward professional planners, grant writers, and unelected organizations who shape economic outcomes outside traditional constitutional accountability.

Additional Reading

• Barnett, R. E. (2016). Our republican constitution: Securing the liberty and sovereignty of we the people. Broadside Books.

• Osborne, S. P., & Brown, L. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of innovation in public services. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/usd/handbook-of-innovation-in-public-services-9781849809740.html

• Whitman v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001). https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/99-1257

Recent Government Financing and Oversight Issues

• Audit of Idaho State University's misuse of funds

  • In 2025, the Idaho State University was found to have “misused or misappropriated” about $853,700 of state‐appropriated funds for a forensic pathology centre that was never built. Oversight found inadequate internal controls.

  • This shows how public funds can flow into projects with weak or no accountability.

• Problems with Idaho’s new $100 million financial system (“Luma”)

  • In 2024–2025, the state’s $102 million upgrade to its accounting and business system resulted in delays, duplicate payments, payment errors, and disruptions to oversight functions.

  • A weak or faulty accounting system undermines the tracking of public funds and grants.

• State budget shortfall and revenue risk due to tax cuts and reliance on federal grants

  • By mid-2025, the state faced budget pressures after years of significant tax cuts and a firm reliance on federal grants. Discussions emerged about possible mid-year reductions of 2%, 4%, or 6%

  • This reflects systemic financing risk, where public commitments outpace stable revenue.

• Delay in audit of federal grants and risk to federal funding

  • In late 2025, the Legislative Services Office Audit Division noted that the state’s implementation of the Luma system delayed the required “single audit” of federal awards, threatening federal grant eligibility.

  • This illustrates how inadequate oversight infrastructure increases the risk that public‐private or nonprofit channels of funds may lose federal backing.

• Weak oversight framework of federal grants in Idaho

  • A Ballotpedia summary notes that the state receives about $4.5 billion in federal funds, but Idaho statutes rely on agency self-reporting and lack strong legislative or executive oversight mechanisms.

  • This points to structural governance issues in tracking the management of large volumes of public grants.

Disclaimer

This analysis is offered as opinion and public commentary. It does not allege illegal conduct, constitutional violations, or wrongdoing by any specific organization or individual. It evaluates structural risks, governance concerns, and policy impacts from a liberty perspective. All claims rely on publicly available information. Readers should verify facts independently and consult legal counsel for formal interpretation of constitutional or statutory issues.

Share

Subscribe now

Shadow Governance Masquerading as Progress

Economic Development Groups (EDGs) present themselves as partners in prosperity. In reality, they often function as unelected shadow governments that steer the direction of entire regions while remaining outside the constitutional constraints that bind legitimate public institutions. Their language is polished. Their intentions are advertised as benevolent. Their methods regularly undermine the principles that sustain a free republic. Ronald Reagan rejected this approach as industrial policy, and its structure resembles what critics once described as an indirect oligarchy.

The central problem is power without accountability. An EDG’s influence is often formalized through the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) , a regional blueprint that sets priorities and directs resources. An organization like Frontier Community Resources, once it writes the strategy and receives public funds to execute it, moves beyond assisting businesses to planning the region’s economy.

That function carries serious consequences. It uses taxpayer dollars to influence where growth goes, who receives financing, and which projects advance or collapse. This is not a free market. No citizen should have to compete with a publicly subsidized nonprofit for permission, capital, or access to opportunity. These practices elevate insiders, create dependencies, and place major decisions in the hands of planners rather than participants in voluntary exchange.

Elevating Insiders and Socialized Risk

The lending structure reflects the same problem. When a nonprofit distributes credit backed by public money, it distorts the market and shields itself from the discipline that private lenders face. Entrepreneurs become dependent on institutional approval rather than merit. Private lenders are crowded out. Risk is socialized while reward remains private. This does not build resilient enterprise. It builds a gatekeeper class that answers to no electorate.

Erosion of Local Consent and Zoning Safeguards

Their influence over infrastructure raises equally serious concerns. When an EDG assists municipalities in planning water, sewer, fire protection, or community design, it crosses into areas that involve taxation, regulation, and sometimes eminent domain. These powers must remain under the authority of the people who bear the cost. Allowing an outside organization to shape these decisions transfers authority from citizens to planners. Liberty erodes the moment the public no longer directs its own development.

The same pattern appears in the growing push to eliminate or weaken special use permits and local hearing processes. This is happening across the Magic Valley, including discussions reflected in Jerome County Planning and Zoning Minutes from May 19, 2025. Economic development groups often encourage cities and counties to streamline permitting by restricting public comment, reducing notice requirements, or converting discretionary reviews into automatic approvals.

These proposals are marketed as efficient or pro-business. In practice, they silence the forums where residents defend property rights, challenge impacts, or insist on reasonable conditions. Special use and conditional use processes exist to protect the public from large projects and from outside influence that bypasses local judgment. When regional organizations pressure local governments to reduce these safeguards, authority shifts from the governed to investors and planners who do not live with the consequences.

Future Danger: Likely Intrusion of Mega Projects

Many development organizations have promoted projects that align with the agricultural and industrial character of their communities. These have produced benefits because they respected local identity. The danger lies in assuming this alignment will continue. Once the policy framework, influence networks, and streamlined procedures are established, the same tools will be used to promote large renewable energy sites, AI infrastructure, server farms, data centers, and other mega projects that dramatically expand industrial footprints.

These projects do not follow the principles of reasonable development, cultural respect, environmental restraint, or local consent. What seems harmless when applied to community-scale industry becomes dangerous when directed toward projects that exceed local capacity, strain systems, damage rural landscapes, and erode the very culture that sustains the region.

The methods used by these organizations are not proper and the structures offer little protection for citizens. The policy framework functions as a revolving door for outside interests. Once incentives shift, the streamlined procedures and weakened public processes will usher in development that the community neither requested nor approved. A free society cannot rely on good intentions. It requires limits, safeguards, and citizens governing their own future.

The rhetoric of resilient communities and community building adds another layer. These phrases often function as social engineering. When an organization decides which areas deserve investment, which neighborhoods should be revitalized, which industries should expand, or which populations should be targeted, it is not empowering a community. It is redesigning it. In a free society, markets and citizens determine outcomes. Central planning, even when wrapped in nonprofit branding, undermines that freedom.

As these organizations expand, the danger grows. Once they become indispensable to grants, infrastructure, loans, or growth planning, they operate as permanent fixtures of influence. A private board and its staff acquire practical control over local development without ever standing before voters. That violates the basic principle of republican government, which requires that public direction originate from the public itself.

Constitutional Principles for Development

Proper constitutional development moves in the opposite direction. Development must answer to consent, transparency, and local authority, not regional boards. Cities and counties must govern the scale and pace of their own growth and must never be pressured by bodies that do not answer to their electorate.

• Sovereignty of scale requires that development never outpace local capacity or consent. The regional agendas promoted through the CEDS process often move faster than local debate can sustain.

• Ecological accountability requires that growth respect limits on land, water, and environmental stability. Groups chasing grant-driven expansion often subordinate these limits to economic opportunity or policy frameworks imported from outside the region.

• Civic reciprocity requires that development strengthen the community rather than displace it. When projects privilege investors, administrators, or outside entities, reciprocity collapses.

• Fiscal integrity demands that public money serve public good, not private preference. Hidden subsidies, grant dependencies, and cost shifting violate this requirement immediately.

• Cultural continuity recognizes that a region’s character is a form of wealth. Development bodies often treat local character as optional, secondary to their strategic model.

• The duty of scrutiny obligates citizens to challenge every claim made by those seeking influence or public funds. Economic development groups rely on jargon that obscures their impact and reduces dissent.

• Adaptive governance requires that regulations evolve to meet new industrial risks. EDGs often push rapid expansion first and local adaptation later, exposing communities to harm before safeguards exist.

Across every principle, the pattern remains the same. Liberty requires transparency, accountability, consent, and restraint. Economic development groups operate outside those boundaries. They may not call themselves governments, but they often function like governments without the burden of republican legitimacy.

A free people cannot delegate their future to organizations that answer only to themselves.

Share

Related: Principle of Economic Growth

Glossary of Terms for Economic Development and Local Sovereignty

Adaptive Governance
The requirement that regulations evolve to address new forms of industrial expansion, environmental risks, and community strain. Healthy governance adapts its safeguards before damage occurs. When EDGs tend to promote rapid expansion and expect local adaptation to occur afterward, they expose communities to unnecessary risk.

Civic Reciprocity
The principle that development must strengthen the community that bears its burdens. When projects benefit outside investors or institutional planners while imposing costs on local residents, reciprocity collapses. A legitimate development model requires mutual benefit and local consent, rather than extraction.

Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS)
A federally prescribed regional planning document that outlines long-term priorities, infrastructure needs, industry targets, and development goals for an entire region. Although marketed as a roadmap for prosperity, the CEDS functions as a quasi-governmental instrument that sets the agenda for local governments without being drafted or approved by voters. Its influence can override local judgment and weaken the principle that communities should govern the scale and pace of their own development.

Cultural Continuity
The understanding that the character, customs, and identity of a region are forms of cultural wealth. Development that disregards or overrides this identity diminishes the community’s long-term viability. When EDGs treat culture as incidental, they advance projects that hollow out the very communities they claim to strengthen.

Duty of Scrutiny
The civic obligation to question authority, evaluate claims, and challenge institutions that seek influence or public funds. This duty protects liberty by ensuring that no entity operates beyond public review. EDGs often rely on jargon and internal networks that reduce scrutiny and silence dissent.

Ecological Accountability
The responsibility to recognize limits on water, land, soil, and environmental stability and to ensure that development does not exceed those limits. Growth that ignores ecological boundaries undermines the long-term well-being of a community. Grant-driven or industrial-scale projects often subordinate these limits to external agendas.

Economic Development Groups (EDGs)
Nonprofit or quasi-public organizations that describe themselves as facilitators of business growth. In practice, they often operate as shadow governments that direct regional priorities, influence the flow of public funds, and shape zoning and infrastructure decisions from outside democratic oversight. Their position allows them to wield public power without constitutional accountability.

Fiscal Integrity
The principle that public money must serve public good and remain transparent, accountable, and free from hidden subsidies. Public funds used to elevate specific businesses, private boards, or external planners violate fiscal integrity. A community has the right to demand full disclosure of how public resources are spent and who benefits from them.

Gatekeeper Class
A group of institutions or individuals who control access to opportunity, capital, and regulatory favor. When EDGs distribute public loans or influence zoning outcomes, they create a gatekeeper class that stands between citizens and the marketplace. This undermines equal opportunity and embeds power where no electoral accountability exists.

Grant-Driven Development
A system where growth decisions are primarily shaped by the pursuit of federal or state grants rather than by community needs or market demand. Grant-driven development distorts priorities by rewarding expansion for its own sake. It often leads to projects that outpace infrastructure, strain local services, or shift unintended costs onto residents.

Industrial Policy
A top-down development model where planners, institutions, or governments intentionally shape economic outcomes by steering resources, directing infrastructure, or favoring certain industries. Ronald Reagan rejected this approach because it replaces market freedom with managed economies. In modern practice, industrial policy is often carried out through nonprofit intermediaries that lack public accountability.

Indirect Oligarchy
A condition in which unelected boards, planners, or institutional networks accumulate influence over public outcomes without formal authority or electoral consent. It is indirect because the control is exercised through planning documents, grant systems, advisory roles, and regulatory influence rather than overt political positions. This structure centralizes power while evading the checks that protect a free people.

Local Consent
The principle that decisions affecting a community’s land use, infrastructure, taxation, and growth must originate with the people who live there. Consent is expressed through public hearings, local ordinances, zoning safeguards, and direct participation in civic processes. When EDGs pressure cities or counties to streamline or eliminate these processes, they erode the consent that legitimizes local government.

Mega Projects
Large-scale industrial or energy developments such as renewable power sites, AI server farms, data centers, transmission corridors, and other footprint-intensive facilities. These projects frequently exceed local capacity, consume enormous resources, and alter cultural and environmental landscapes. When adopted through weakened safeguards, they displace the voice of the community.

Outside Influence Networks
The interconnected boards, planners, consultants, and partner organizations that shape development decisions without living in or answering to the community affected. These networks can direct growth, influence zoning, and shape economic priorities while remaining insulated from local consequences.

Revolving Door Development
A cycle in which regional planning bodies, grant administrators, consultants, and investors move between roles in the development pipeline, reinforcing shared priorities and limiting independent oversight. This creates an environment where projects advance because of institutional momentum rather than public consent.

Shadow Governance
The exercise of public-like power by private or quasi-public bodies that lack the accountability structures required of government. Shadow governance occurs when organizations plan development, direct public funds, influence regulations, or steer infrastructure while remaining outside electoral reach. It undermines republican self-government by placing authority in institutions that do not answer to the people.

Sovereignty of Scale
The constitutional and civic requirement that development remain proportionate to the community’s capacity, infrastructure, environmental limits, and cultural identity. A community has the right to determine the pace and magnitude of growth. When regional planning bodies pursue large-scale agendas that exceed local capacity, they violate this sovereign boundary.

Special Use Permit (SUP)
A land-use tool that requires public hearings, neighbor notification, and discretionary review before approving a project with significant impacts. SUP processes protect communities from harmful or oversized developments and allow citizens to insist on reasonable conditions. Efforts to weaken SUP requirements strip residents of one of the few remaining tools of direct local control.

Streamlined Permitting
A system where public hearings, notice requirements, zoning reviews, and SUP processes are reduced or eliminated in order to move projects faster. Streamlining is often framed as efficiency. In practice, it weakens local sovereignty, suppresses public participation, and clears the path for large-scale development the community may not want.

Disclaimer

This analysis is offered as opinion and public commentary. It does not allege illegal conduct, constitutional violations, or wrongdoing by any specific organization or individual. The purpose is to evaluate structural risks, governance concerns, and policy impacts from a liberty perspective. All claims are based on publicly available information. Readers should verify facts independently and consult legal counsel for any formal interpretation of constitutional or statutory issues.

Note: This is based on an interview by Bill Colley (13010AM) on 10/03/2025 7:00 AM. Listen below.

When Jerome County Commissioner Ben Crouch spoke on the radio, he admitted two things that cut to the heart of this controversy: first, that the county business building is not a courthouse, and second, that there have been no threats against county employees. Despite this, the commissioners voted to ban firearms, citing only “safety” and vague “incidents.” Idaho law is crystal clear — counties cannot regulate firearms. Only the legislature can, and it has done so narrowly, banning weapons in courtrooms, not in administrative offices. By acting outside that boundary, our commissioners have traded law for symbolism, and in doing so, they have undermined both public trust and their oath of office.

Key Admissions in the Transcript

1. Acknowledgment it is not a courthouse: Crouch admits: “we knew it wasn’t still a courthouse.” This is critical, because Idaho Code § 18-3302C only bans weapons in courtrooms. He concedes the administrative building does not meet that definition.

   18-3302C. Prohibitions – Exceptions.

   (1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry a concealed weapon, except in the person’s place of abode or fixed place of business, without a license to carry concealed weapons as provided in section 18-3302, Idaho Code. The provisions of this section shall not apply to:

   (a) Sheriffs, constables, marshals, police officers, or other duly appointed peace officers;

   (b) Any person in actual service as a member of the army, navy, marine corps, air force, or coast guard of the United States, or any duly organized reserve or national guard unit;

   (c) Any person who is outside the limits of any city, while engaged in lawful hunting, fishing, trapping, or other lawful outdoor activity;

   (d) Any person while transporting such weapon in a motor vehicle;

   (e) Any person who has a valid permit issued pursuant to section 18-3302, Idaho Code;

   (f) The courtrooms of any court.

2. Legal counsel’s advice: He says: “legal counsel told us…you have the right, the opportunity, the authority, the responsibility to take care of our employees.” That is a general workplace-safety rationale, not a statutory grant of firearm regulatory power. The only specific firearm regulation authority rests with the state legislature (Idaho Code § 18-3302J). His statement shows commissioners leaned on vague “employee protection” language instead of citing an actual statute that authorizes a weapons ban.

   18-3302J. PREEMPTION OF FIREARMS REGULATION.

   (1) The legislature finds that uniform laws regulating firearms are necessary to protect the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed in the United States constitution and the constitution of the state of Idaho.

   (2) Except as expressly provided by state law, no county, city, agency, board, or any other political subdivision of this state shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, rule, or regulation that regulates in any manner the possession, carrying, transportation, sale, transfer, purchase, acquisition, licensing, registration, or use of firearms or any element relating to firearms and components thereof, including ammunition.

   (3) The provisions of this section shall not be construed to affect:
   (a) The authority of a city or county to regulate or prohibit the discharge of firearms within its boundaries, except that no city, county, or other political subdivision shall adopt or enforce any ordinance, rule, or regulation that prohibits the discharge of firearms on land of twenty-five (25) contiguous acres or more that is located outside the corporate limits of a city and that is zoned for agricultural use;
   (b) The authority of the state of Idaho through the fish and game commission to regulate the discharge of firearms by hunters within the state;
   (c) The authority of counties and cities to regulate the location and construction of sport shooting ranges, subject to the limitations contained in chapter 91, title 67, Idaho Code;
   (d) The authority of counties and cities to regulate the carrying of firearms by employees, agents, or officials of the political subdivision in the course of their employment or official duties;
   (e) The application of any local zoning ordinance to firearms businesses to the same extent as other businesses generally;
   (f) The authority of counties and cities to regulate the display of firearms by businesses located within the jurisdiction of the city or county at gun shows or other events.

3. Incidents but no threats: When asked, he admits: “Not so much threats, but incidents that…made us pause.” And later: “no threats.” This undercuts the narrative of an urgent security threat. They are acting on hypotheticals, not documented dangers.

4. Safety: When Colley says: “it makes it clear that courthouses can do this but…but I guess so it’s going to come back to the definition of courthouse.” Crouch could have stretched the definition of courthouse but did not, he re-stated the justification of the ban was “safety”.

5. Contradictions on firearms policy:

   • On one hand, they banned weapons for the public.

   • On the other, he says: “we have the intention of letting people [employees] do that…trained through the sheriff.” This shows they are not opposed to firearms generally, only to firearms outside their control. That is not a consistent policy; it is selective regulation.

6. Sheriff’s role: Crouch says: “the sheriff absolutely is [behind us]…he’s the one that came to us, he’s the one represented the idea.” This ties the sheriff directly to the policy, but the sheriff has no independent authority to ban firearms outside state law. His proper role is enforcement and security, not legislation.

7. Public pushback acknowledged: He admits they are hearing objections: “those of you that are upset and unhappy, let’s talk and come to a solution.” This suggests the commissioners know they are in shaky territory and are trying to soften the blow.

Legal Analysis

• Idaho preemption (§ 18-3302J) overrides local action. Commissioners cannot create firearm bans.

• Idaho courtroom restriction (§ 18-3302C) does not apply, by their own admission that the building is not a courthouse.

• General workplace safety obligations do not override state firearm law. No Idaho statute gives commissioners power to disarm the public for “safety.”

• Allowing employees to carry, but not the public is itself a form of firearm regulation, and therefore preempted.

Rhetorical Analysis

Crouch is trying to thread a needle:

• Admits the building is not a courthouse.

• Justify the ban with vague incidents, no threats.

• Claim authority under “responsibility to protect employees.”

• Promise compromise by allowing some armed employees if trained.

The transcript shows a commissioner who knows the legal ground is shaky and is attempting to rely on emotion (“shootings at schools and churches”) instead of statute.

Related:

Subscribe now

Possible Consitutional “Safety” Mitigations

Freedom is scary. It means living with risk instead of handing every decision to government. Idaho’s firearms laws reflect that balance: the state has already spoken, limiting weapons only in courtrooms while protecting the right to carry elsewhere. Counties cannot erase that risk by passing their own bans, no matter how well-intentioned.

What local officials can do is adopt lawful measures that improve safety without trampling liberty. Better screening, controlled access, visible deputies, and clear conduct policies are all available. These tools respect both state law and the Second Amendment while still addressing real security needs.

The first and most important step is to rely on existing state firearm restrictions. Idaho law already addresses this issue. Under Idaho Code § 18-3302C(1)(f), firearms are prohibited in courtrooms, and commissioners are well within their rights to post notices and provide security screening at those doors. What they cannot do is stretch that statute beyond its intended scope. The law does not authorize a county to extend the restriction into commissioner chambers, clerk’s offices, or other administrative spaces.

Local governments also have lawful ways to strengthen building security without crossing into illegal firearm regulation. They can install magnetometers or other screening tools at entrances. They may assign deputies or uniformed security staff to provide presence and respond to disturbances. Access points can be controlled with keycards or ID checks for employees, and buildings can be upgraded with better surveillance, lighting, and alarm systems. These steps improve safety without dictating who may carry a firearm. They regulate how the building is monitored, not the rights of the people inside.

Beyond physical measures, general conduct and trespass laws remain fully available. Officials already have the power to remove disruptive individuals or trespass people who refuse to comply with lawful conduct rules, whether the issue is noise, threats, or disorderly conduct. What they cannot do is treat lawful firearm possession as disruption in itself. Misuse of a weapon is a legitimate reason for removal. Mere carrying is not.

Commissioners can also lawfully rely on the sheriff’s office. They may request increased patrols or assign deputies during meetings. The sheriff is the county’s chief law enforcement officer, and this route ensures security while staying inside the law. It adds presence and reassurance without inventing new regulations.

Finally, there are administrative measures that touch conduct, not firearms. Bag checks, visitor sign-ins, or appointment-only access for sensitive departments are permissible if applied neutrally. A rule such as “all bags are subject to inspection” applies to everyone and does not single out gun owners.

The bottom line is clear. Jerome County can lawfully secure its buildings through screening, deputies, access controls, and the enforcement of existing state law. What it cannot do is post a blanket “no weapons” sign at the administrative building. That step directly contradicts Idaho Code § 18-3302J and places the commissioners outside the authority the legislature has given them. By ignoring that boundary, the board substitutes symbolism for law and leaves the county exposed to legal challenge.

For More Analysis

Learn about Jerome County Residents Battle Agaisnt SWIP-N

Compiled and Written by Jeff Pierson

Jerome, Idaho is a county of farmers, families, and faith. People here expect their leaders, their neighbors, to act with competence and honesty. Yet in the span of weeks, three separate crises have shaken public confidence: a weapons ban that collides with state law, an ongoing transportation collapse that leaves children walking in the dark, and an energy project that risks turning Idaho into a sacrifice zone for California.

Taken together, they form a single question that more and more citizens are thinking, if not shouting: what the hell is happening in Jerome?

1. The Second Amendment Clash

Update: 10/06/2025 130PM - The Ban Has Been Rescinded.

Lessons Learned:
1) Commission’s counsel should be banned from the courthouse
2) The commissioners need to learn to read the law for themselves
3) The same people, the same thinking are making decisions about SWIP-N

On October 1, the Jerome County Commissioners, Ben Crouch, Charles Howell, and Art Watkins, voted unanimously to ban weapons in both the courthouse and the county administrative building. Signs went up, the sheriff signed off, and a county attorney gave cover. Local news repeated the talking points about “enhanced security” and “recent events.”

But under Idaho law, the county cannot do this. Idaho Code § 18-3302J is one of the strongest firearm preemption statutes in the nation. It prohibits counties, cities, or boards from regulating the possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms except in narrow circumstances such as actual courthouses or schools. Administrative buildings are not included. The law exists to stop exactly what Jerome County just attempted: creating local gun-free zones in defiance of state law.

Critics, including legislative candidate Lyle Johnstone, argue this is not only unlawful but dangerous, creating new zones where law-abiding citizens are disarmed and defenseless. The commissioners defend it as “safety.” To many, it looks like three officials forgetting their limits and daring the public to stop them. Unless challenged in court or through recall, this vote could set a precedent other counties will be tempted to follow.

Related The Second Amendment Clash

2. The Busing Breakdown

If Jerome’s school transportation system were a private business, it would already be bankrupt. Parents report buses arriving before dawn, pickups at 5:30 AM, children dropped off after 6 PM, and entire routes cut without notice. In one Facebook thread, dozens of families described young children walking alone in the dark, drivers dismissed or reassigned, and phone calls to administrators going unanswered.

The district promised solutions months ago, including deployment of the BusRight tracking software paid for by taxpayers, the third routing and tracking application since October 2024. Six weeks into the school year, it still is not working. Meanwhile, safety incidents pile up. In October, Bus #9 collided with a parked RV. Though the damage was minor, this bus had already been tied to multiple complaints in recent weeks.

Parents are now threatening to bypass local officials altogether and go straight to the State Department of Education. But that path is hardly reassuring. The Department’s own Director of Student Transportation is married to Jerome’s transportation director, a glaring conflict of interest. And in 2024, a state audit revealed the Department could not account for 545 million dollars in district payments. If the State Department of Education cannot follow its own money or operate without conflicts of interest, and Jerome cannot deploy software properly, what faith should the public have in either?

Related The Busing Breakdown

3. The SWIP-N Power Line

While Jerome grapples with its local crises, it is also being targeted as a corridor for the Southwest Intertie Project North (SWIP-N), a high-voltage transmission line designed to move power south to California. At County Commission hearings, developers admitted that up to 80 percent of the line’s capacity is already contracted for export. Idaho will bear the scars of siting, land seizures, landscape disruption, and financial risks, while Californians reap the electricity.

This is not about stability for Idaho’s grid. It is corporate welfare disguised as infrastructure, a shell game that leaves Idaho ratepayers subsidizing California’s failed energy policies. Local families, farmers, and landowners have raised alarms in public comments and appeals, pointing out the risks: economic exposure, land use burdens, environmental degradation, and the erosion of Idaho’s energy sovereignty.

The county planning and zoning response has been to approve permits and repeat the talking points of the developers. Just as with the weapons ban and the bus crisis, accountability is brushed aside and citizens are left to fight uphill battles against decisions made without them.

Related SWIP-N Power Line

Is Something in the Water?

Something strange must be floating through Jerome. Maybe it is in the water, maybe it is in the air, because the decisions coming out of local government cannot be explained by ordinary logic. Commissioners vote in ways that conflict with state law and the Constitution, as if the rulebook is optional. Planning and zoning seems more interested in subsidizing California’s power problems than in listening to its own citizens. The school transportation department - despite taxpayers buying new buses, new software, and a new director - is still, 6 weeks after school started, not fully functional.

This is not bad luck. It is a streak of leadership that bends logic until it snaps. Conflicts of interest? Shrugged off. Transparency? Treated like a formality, not a duty. The spirit of honest service? Missing in action, replaced by a culture of excuses and self-preservation.

The relationships between boards are uncomfortably close, with individuals and family members serving across multiple advisory and governing bodies, including the RINO-led Jerome Republican Party. It gives new meaning to the school district’s motto: One Team, One Town, One Family.

WTH is happening in Jerome? The answer is simple: a collapse of accountability. And unless citizens demand better, through public pressure, legal challenges, recalls, and the ballot box, the slide will continue. Jerome leaders need to step up or step aside - put families, freedom, and the future of Idaho first.

Disclaimer
This article reflects the author’s analysis and commentary based on publicly available information, local reports, state audits, and citizen accounts. All claims regarding statutes, policies, and public actions are presented in good faith for the purpose of public discussion and civic accountability. Readers are encouraged to review Idaho statutes, county records, and official reports directly. Any opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of any organization or group.

The debate isn’t about whether the grid needs stability

The debate isn’t about whether the grid needs stability. The real questions are why it has become unstable, at what cost, who will pay, and what risks Idaho must carry. The details matter.

At a recent hearing, Great Basin Transmission admitted that 80% of the line’s capacity is already contracted to send power south. Under current agreements, that energy won’t strengthen Idaho; it will subsidize California’s failed energy policies.

The negative risks for Idaho tied to the Southwest Intertie Project North (SWIP-N) appear again and again in the appeal filings and public comments. They fall into four categories:

Economic exposure

Most of the line’s capacity is destined for California. Idaho ratepayers and landowners will bear the siting costs, construction disturbance, and long-term impacts while the benefits flow out of state. That imbalance could drive utilities like Idaho Power to prioritize export profits over local reliability, leaving Idaho families and businesses with higher prices and tighter margins.

System reliability

California’s grid has grown unstable because of its heavy reliance on intermittent wind and solar while phasing out dependable baseload generation. SWIP-N links Idaho directly into that market. The danger is that California’s shortages will spill into Idaho’s system, straining capacity during peak demand and importing the consequences of California’s energy policies into our grid.

Land use and environmental costs

The project requires massive towers and wide easements cutting across farmland, rangeland, and wildlife habitat in Jerome County and beyond. Landowners face property devaluation, interference with aerial crop spraying, and restrictions on land use that last for decades. To many, this looks like Idaho land being sacrificed for someone else’s gain.

Legal and governance risks

Opponents argue that Jerome County may not have fully followed its own ordinances or Idaho’s Local Land Use Planning Act in approving the project. If true, it sets a precedent that large corporations can push projects through without meeting the standards meant to protect local health, safety, and welfare. That erodes county authority and undermines public trust.

In short, Idaho’s risks are financial (paying for a line that serves California), systemic (tying into California’s unstable grid), local (loss of property value and land use), and institutional (weakening county authority). Taken together, these risks explain why opponents see SWIP-N as a net negative for Idaho even if it benefits regional utilities.

Options Ignored

Idaho does have options for power generation, energy policy, and grid stability. But too often, those solutions are sidelined in favor of deals that reward corporations while shifting risks to families. They depend on western states and the federal government holding California accountable for its own energy choices. Instead, money and political power prefer the easy path, handing out corporate welfare in exchange for promises that my children will never be able to hold those corporations or politicians accountable for.

Related

This testimony stands among the most powerful challenges yet raised against the SWIP-N power line. Submitted by Sakura Conservation Strategies (Dan Sakura) to the Jerome County Commissioners, it responds to the appeal of a special use permit granted to Great Basin Transmission LLC.

With that context in mind, the document needs no further explanation, it speaks with force on its own.

Related

Lacking Transparency: The Great Basin Records Request

Note: At the end of this article is a 1) copy of the Jerome County Planning and Zoning Response to Dean Dimond 2) Twenty questions for the Jerome County Commissioners

On September 27, 2024, the Jerome County Planning and Zoning Administrator sent a response to Dean Dimond’s amended public records request. Dimond’s questions were simple. He wanted to know what gave the county power to approve Planning and Zoning applications before outside agencies responded, how long the county waited for those responses, whether the Highway District was notified in the Great Basin case, and if there were other times applications had moved forward without agency input.

Instead of clear answers, he received a letter written that appears to have been written by Saul Goodman. The response pointed him to all of Idaho Code and the Jerome County Zoning Ordinance, told him he could pay hundreds of dollars for paper copies, and claimed that “proof” of Highway District notification was “subjective.” Over and over, the reply pushed the responsibility back onto the citizen to dig through files on his own and pay extra fees for the privilege.

Update

There will be second hearing on Oct. 7th regarding the SWIP -Great Basin / LS Power special use permit.

According to Rep David Leavitt: “This is our chance to stand together and insist that the Board of Commissioners put the brakes on this Special Use Permit until the public receives clear, documented answers.”

The Context

Special use permits are not small matters. They allow projects that can reshape land, roads, and communities. Idaho law requires notice to affected agencies so they can raise concerns about traffic, safety, and infrastructure. Dimond’s questions went to the core of whether the county was following the law.

The Response

The county’s answers were evasive. Asked about authority, they cited entire codes without pointing to any section that actually addresses timing. Asked how long they wait for agencies, they repeated the same empty reference. Asked for proof of notice to the Highway District, they said no document with that exact title exists and that proof is subjective. Asked about other cases, they said they keep no records in that way. Asked for documents from affected individuals, they again said no record exists.

Every answer avoided the heart of the question.

The Tone

The letter was written to protect the county, not to inform the public. Citizens were told they could come to the office, look through files under staff watch, and pay labor costs. It was polite on the surface but hostile in substance.

Assessment

• Logic of the Response
  It is not reasonable for a county that handles permits all the time to act as if it cannot explain its own process. A public records officer should help clarify, not confuse.

• Proof of Notification
  It is not believable that there is no proof of Highway District notice. Idaho law requires notice. Whether the county or LS Power sent it, a copy should be in the file. Proof is not subjective.

• Knowledge of Prior Cases
  Planning staff work with these files every day. Even if they do not sort them into neat categories, they know if other permits moved forward without agency replies. Claiming ignorance does not pass the test of honesty.

• Responsibility for Notifying the Highway District
  The duty belongs to the county. Even if applicants send the letters, the county must verify it happened and keep the record. Responsibility cannot be handed off.

Conclusion

This is another example of how Idaho’s transparency laws continue to fail Idahoans.

The letter may satisfy the letter of the law, but it fails the spirit of open government. It dodges questions, avoids clarity, and shifts responsibility back onto citizens. If the county cannot even show a copy of a notice to the Highway District, then the entire permit process is suspect.

The behavior of the Jerome County Planning and Zoning Administrator appears adversarial. To many in the public it feels as if she has been caught hiding something. More troubling is the sense that neighbors entrusted with responsibility are acting obstructively and unclearly in their dealings. Politics, policies, and procedures are one matter, but public servants carry both a duty and a moral obligation to assist the public even when they dislike the questions being asked. Neutral conduct is not optional. It is a legal requirement.

When leaders answer with deflection and redirection, they show bias that cannot be tolerated. The truth of the matter is still uncertain, but reports of “coincidental” meetings between Great Basin Transmission or LS Power employees, their contractors, and members of the Board of Commissioners and P&Z, while unconfirmed, raise legitimate concern. It isn’t illegal for anyone to attend commission meetings or meet with public officials, but the context and circumstances can be questionable. These are our neighbors and friends, people we have supported. The public deserves transparency and the chance for fuller comment, as Commissioner Watkins has suggested.

Related

09/27/2024 Planning and Zoning Response to Dean Dimond’s Amended Public Records Request

This document has been formatted and noted for readability

(PZ)Good Morning Dean,

(PZ)This is a response to your public records request dated September 29, 2025, which has been reviewed by the Jerome County Prosecutor’s Office. Please note the following responses:

(DD) 1. Please provide the policy you are referring to that AUTHORIZES the P&Z AND OR THE COMMISSIONERS TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY to do this [P&Z applications being approved after an agency has been notified but before they respond]?

(PZ)You do not in your request identify the type of P&Z application you are referring to, so please note this response assumes the nature of the application you are referring to is one applying for a special use permit. For policy controlling both the Board and Commission in such an application, you are referred to the Idaho Code as a whole https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/), and specifically the Local Land Use Planning Act found in title 67, chapter 65. You are also referred to the Jerome County Zoning Ordinance that can be located online t https://www.jeromecountyid.us/170/Zoning-Ordinances. If you wish the county to provide a hard copy of these documents to you, please submit payment in the amount of $790 for a set of the Idaho Code, and $72.75 for the JCZO (291 pages x 25 cents).

(DD) 2. Please provide how long you wait for the agency to respond.

(PZ)Any documents/records containing this information would be in the sources identified in our response to your Request Number 1. Accordingly, you are directed to that response for information pertaining to this request as well.

(DD) 3. Please provide proof the Highway Department received the notification

(PZ)You do not in your request identify the type of “notification” you are referring to, so please note this response assumes you are referring to proof of the notification the Highway Department was sent regarding the Great Basin application. Please be advised there is no document in that application entitled, “proof the Highway District received notice of the Great Basin Application,” which would allow this office to know for certain it is providing the record you are in fact seeking. That is, because “proof” is subjective, it is your interpretation of the file’s documentation that is needed in order to know whether any documents contain the kind of proof you are seeking. Therefore, if you’d like to schedule a time to physically examine the relevant file/documents – so you can interpret for yourself the contents therein – then please feel free to do so at your earliest convenience. Be aware, however, it will be necessary for a staff member to be present during your examination in order to safeguard our files and thus a charge for labor costs will apply, as will copying costs if you want copies made.

(DD) 4. Besides the Current Great Basin application please provide at least two cases where this has been allowed?

(PZ)Please be advised this office does not make a written record, categorizing prior files/applications in such a manner as you describe and therefore, no record exists in this office that pertains to this request. With that said, you are welcome, as described above, to schedule a time to examine prior applications for yourself so that you can make your own determination of those meeting your criteria.

(DD) 5. Please provide the Documentation from ALL affected individuals as defined by Idaho code (67-6521) in the Great Basin application.

(PZ)Please be advised this office does not make written records, categorizing documentation in such a manner as you describe and therefore, no record exists in this office that pertains to this request. With that said, you are welcome, as described above, to schedule a time to examine all the files of this office for yourself, so that you can make your own determination of what amounts to “Documentation from ALL affected individuals”.

(PZ)To the extent that you might interpret any part of this response to be a denial of your request, you are notified that you have 180 calendar days from the date of mailing this response to file a Petition in the district court of the county where the records or some parts thereof are located. The purpose for the petition would be to compel this office to make available the records you believe you’re being unlawfully denied access to.

(PZ)Respectfully,

(PZ)Kacie Buhler
(PZ)Jerome County Planning & Zoning
(PZ)Administrator

20 Questions for the Jerome County Commissioners

These questions are intended to guide a thorough due diligence review of the SWIP special use permit on appeal. I understand that not every question will apply directly to the normal permitting workflow. Even so, each one speaks to the county’s core duties under Idaho’s Local Land Use Planning Act and the Jerome County code to ground decisions in the record, protect health, safety, and welfare, and produce reasoned findings that can withstand judicial review. Where a question reaches beyond routine processing, it still belongs in the Board’s oversight because it clarifies responsibility, evidence, verification, and enforcement.

• Under the county’s ordinance and Idaho’s Local Land Use Planning Act, who bears the burden to prove that each special use criterion is satisfied, and where is that stated in the local code or record.

• For health, safety, and welfare, who made the county’s determination of compliance. Was it the Commission itself based on the whole record, or was it delegated to staff or outside reviewers.

• Which specific impact studies did the county require the applicant to submit, and on what date were they entered into the record.

• Did the county commission require independent peer review of any applicant studies. If not, why not. If yes, who performed it, who paid for it, and where is the reviewer’s scope and conclusions in the record.

• When applicant studies conflicted with public or expert testimony, how did the county resolve the conflict in written findings, and where does the findings document explain that resolution.

• What measurable standards or thresholds did the county use for construction traffic, roadway damage, dust, noise, and vibration, and which conditions of approval enforce those standards.

• What EMF, aviation, and wildfire risk benchmarks were applied, which sources were used, and how are those benchmarks enforced by condition, timetable, and responsible agency.

• What analysis did the county conduct or adopt regarding cumulative impacts, including foreseeable wind or solar projects enabled by the line, and where do the findings address that cumulative effect.

• How did the county evaluate effects on Minidoka National Historic Site and other cultural resources. Who did the analysis, what visual or cultural mitigation is required, who verifies completion, and by when.

• Which comprehensive plan goals and policies were found to support approval, which conflicting policies were acknowledged, and how did the written findings explain the balance between them.

• Did the county rely on federal NEPA documents for any conclusions. If so, where do the local findings independently apply county approval criteria rather than simply incorporating federal conclusions.

• What alternatives within Jerome County were considered for route, height, or design. Why were they rejected, and where is that alternatives analysis discussed in the findings.

• What clear evidence in the record demonstrates a direct benefit to Jerome County residents as distinct from out of state markets, and how was that weighed against local burdens in the findings.

• List every condition of approval with its performance standard, reporting requirement, deadline, and the specific agency or officer responsible for enforcement. How will noncompliance be detected and penalized.

• What financial assurance instruments are required for construction impacts, site restoration, and decommissioning. In what amounts, for how long, and with what drawdown triggers.

• Provide the notice list, publication dates, and affidavits. Identify any ex parte contacts with commissioners or staff and explain how they were disclosed and cured on the record.

• Where do the written findings identify each approval standard, the key contested facts relied upon, and the rationale connecting evidence to the standard. Cite pages and exhibit numbers.

• Did the county require a construction management plan and traffic control plan that covers haul routes, road protection, emergency access, and agricultural operations. Where are those plans and who signs off before work begins.

• What ongoing compliance monitoring is required after approval. What is the reporting frequency, public accessibility of reports, and the county’s process to initiate enforcement if reports show a problem.

• If the Board finds that any criterion was supported only by conclusory statements or unresolved conflicts in the evidence, what is staff’s recommended remedy on appeal. Uphold, modify with added conditions and findings, or remand for additional evidence and a findings by criterion matrix.

Related

Disclaimer
This article reflects concerns about government process and transparency. It critiques official actions and responses but does not allege criminal conduct. All assessments are based on public records, statutes, and the observed behavior of officials in their public capacity. Readers are encouraged to review the source documents and reach their own conclusions.