SANDPOINT — A pair of county commissioners have officially shared their opinions on a May censure, disputing the Bonner County Republican Central Committee’s claims and basis behind the move.  

Over two months ago, the BCRCC in a 26-8 vote approved a formal censure of commissioners Asia Williams and Brian Domke for “conspiring to keep county business secret as it pertained to land use regulations and agenda requirements” after making an emergency amendment during a March 25 business meeting to place an action item — moratorium on minor land divisions and family exemptions — on the meeting’s agenda. 

A censure is a formal statement of disapproval and typically includes a resolution adopted by a majority vote, expressing a disapproval of an individual’s conduct without removing them from office.  

The censure follows the basis that an Open Meeting Law violation occurred due to commissioners Williams and Domke failing to provide a basis of emergency and good-faith reasoning for the amended agenda and approved action item. 

Since then, the censure has caused tension between the BCRCC and the two commissioners as both parties have conflicting views on the matter.  

According to an article published by the BCRCC, legal errors were committed by the board of commissioners, notably after failing to declare an emergency and good-faith reason for the last-minute amendment to the agenda without public notice.  

The article further relates the “hasty” and “secretive” actions of the board to the “hasty government decision making under the guise of the COVID-19 public health emergency,” which had “negative impacts on health, business, the economy and has caused many people to distrust federal, state and local government.”  

BCRCC officials said Domke and Williams were censured for “acting in haste and secret to abridge previously enjoyed property rights in Bonner County, thereby violating Idaho’s Open Meeting Law, but more importantly, thereby depriving the public of their fundamental right and expectation that our government will only act transparently, publicly, with due process and public notice when contemplating and making changes.”  

The censure was approved during the central committee’s May 21 regular business meeting.  

Domke and Williams voiced their disapproval of the passed censure in mid-July commissioners meeting, expressing concern of representation at the censure vote. 

“I am opposed to a person or group passing judgment on someone without allowing that person to defend themselves and to have all of the pertinent facts presented before a decision is reached, presenting incomplete facts, silencing the voice of opposing views and assigning false motive are all the tactics of tyrants. I'm opposed to those tactics. Such actions are not in line with conservative or morally upright values,” said Domke publicly during a July business meeting. 

Domke said he has always been open to changing his position on a matter if facts are presented by a well-reasoned argument but noted that he disagreed with the process and outcome of the censure.  

Williams also disagreed with the censure process in a July 19 blog post, claiming that Bonner County Republican Central Committee chair Scott Herndon created a false narrative in the censure resolution. She also attached an email from Herndon to herself, citing discrepancies in the email and the censure resolution.  

“Scott Herndon states that ‘The Resolution…does not focus on the open meeting law violations.’ Nor does it take a position on MLD’s. He states it focuses on one thing…. the use of an emergency. He states that the BCRCC ‘does not want our county government to govern under the guise of an emergency.’ However, if you read the resolution, found on the BCRCC website, the emailed statement is FALSE. However, it is in the above email that he alone changes the reason for the censure,” wrote Williams in her blog.  

Both commissioners further hit on the lack of involvement in the censure, not being given the proper notice and opportunity to represent themselves, something that they noted was given to previous commissioners Luke Omodt and Steve Bradshaw during a 2023 failed censure attempt.  

When asked about the lack of representation, Herndon told The Daily Bee that the 2023 attempted censure of Omodt and Bradshaw followed suit of Article XX, which allows the central committee to vote in the stripping of party affiliation if violations persisted. However, Herndon shared that “they (commissioners) have no right to come before the committee under some form of due process to challenge disaffiliation, because we never did that.” 

Herndon said Bradshaw and Omodt were not given the opportunity to go before the committee when they passed a no-confidence vote, which communicates a group’s level of concern for an individual’s competence in a position.  

While a censure is a group disapproval of an action, Herndon further noted that the “resistance” to the censure "is going to do them more damage with our committee in the long term than even this one act of operating government and secrecy.” 

Background 

The censure stems from a March 25 business meeting where county commissioners made a last-minute amendment to the meeting’s agenda to include an emergency planning department item, which established a moratorium on minor land divisions and family exemptions.  

The amendment was approved by Domke and Williams, with Commissioner Ron Korn disagreeing with the basis of a declaration of emergency and the “lack of transparency” to the updated agenda.  

In the same meeting, following the approval of the amended agenda, Williams and Domke further approved the added planning item for an emergency moratorium on MLDs and family exemptions.   

The added and approved moratorium brought with it a whirlwind of emotions, as community members agreed with the planning department’s claim that the necessity for a moratorium was due to the abused land division process that’s led to infrastructure issues such as fires. Further arguments were made against MLDs, citing improper land division as the reason for some sewer issues and damaged roads.  

Other community members were in opposition to the moratorium, arguing that the division of land was a right, and that individuals in the process of applying for an MLD will be forced to stop their plans. 

However, in a 2-1 vote, the moratorium was passed.