Frequently Asked Questions
There is nothing in the written record that would indicate the BOCC ever requested or directed True Pearce to conduct a review of county code. There is also no record that the BOCC authorized him to spent County taxpayer funds to direct and control a Holland and Hart review of his work. Finally, the record shows that Pearce did not provide a Holland and Hart a written contract and scope of work, and invoices show that Pearce was involved in the development of Holland and Hart’s report. What was the scope of the review and was it independent?
See also BOCC Minute Summaries 2025 and Reason #16.
You be the judge. Consider the following:
- Pearce personally granted a building permit to Tad Mundell. Tad Mundell’s niece is married to a member of Pearce’s family. See the Cindy Womack-Steele April 17, 2025 reference document regarding the permit.
- True filed lawsuit CR44-25-0154 against Delton Walker, a private citizen. In the end, the judge ruled entirely against True on every count he had asserted. True agreed to dismiss the case on April 3, 2026. Delton had provided information to the commissioners that contradicted the advice and information True had been providing to them. This case required significant personal expense for Delton, while True used our tax dollars. See Reason #7 for case details.
- True sent a letter to Ron Jaeger via Sheriff’s service accusing him of practicing law without a license, among other things. The information Ron had provided to the commissioners contradicted the advice and information True had been providing them. Ron hired an attorney to defend himself, and that attorney clearly disputed the validity of and legal basis for the allegations by True. See Reason #1 for full details.
In 2024, the Board of County Commissioners spent approximately 15 hours and 26 minutes in Executive Session. In 2025, that number increased to approximately 61 hours and 28 minutes. In Idaho, executive sessions are governed by the Idaho Open Meetings Law, specifically Idaho Code § 74-206. That law authorizes closed sessions only for specific, limited purposes. A two-thirds (2/3) roll-call vote by the Board is required to enter executive session, which can only be used for topics such as personnel issues, real estate acquisition, and litigation. The public will never know the information discussed and decisions made in these executive sessions because there is no written record taken. Why the huge increase and why all the secrecy and lack of transparency? You be the judge. Read the information available on this website and ask your Commissioners and Prosecutor.
The May 27, 2025 moratorium proposed by citizens was a temporary pause on authorizing the division and residential development of A1-zoned original lots, tracts, or parcels into more than four parts for the purpose of transfer of ownership or development, unless it is an approved subdivision, and the issuance of building permits related to said residential developments. The purpose of the citizen’s moratorium was to allow time for the County to conduct public hearings and address needed changes to county code, rather than blindly implementing the April 7, 2025 True Pearce code analysis, which had no public hearing process. In June, True revised the citizen moratorium and greatly expanded the scope of the actions affected by the moratorium, which the BOCC then implemented. This caused considerable uproar by citizens in subsequent weeks. True’s moratorium was read into the record on June 9, and it was not the moratorium recommended by citizens. True claimed a moratorium was not legally defensible, however the citizens showed a couple of examples where moratoriums had been successfully used in other counties for similar reasons. True’s moratorium was removed by the BOCC only weeks after it was voted in, with no real reason given. Citizens should read the BOCC meeting minutes for the May through July period and the two moratoriums and draw your own conclusions. A full library of 2025 BOCC meeting minutes is available on this website. The citizen proposed moratorium and True’s moratorium are provided at the following links: Citizen Proposed Moratorium, True Moratorium Implemented
The total cost of the Moye lawsuit is still unknown. As described by True, the County apparently did not prepare or obtain and does not have cost estimates or appraisals and did not take other actions in order to understand the potential costs and options associated with the Moye settlement. This means that the Prosecutor and the Commissioners do not have an official basis for their settlement negotiations and may not understand the total costs the County may still incur as a result of the deal they have been negotiating. The following are the expected cost categories from this litigation.
- Attorney Fees (Total yet to be determined. See attached Litigation file)
- Surveying Costs ($34,075 – see attached Gentry Lane Expenditures (Agape) file)
- Land Purchases (Cost to be determined. Five parcels total – see Gentry Lane Road and Property Descriptions file)
- Road Construction Costs (To be determined. Currently undefined and not estimated – see True emails in email string file. Cost will be substantial, even if County does the construction. No County records)
- Road engineering, geotechnical and environmental work, fences, cattle guards, and other similar expenses. (To be determined. Not yet estimated or quantified. No County records)
- County Employee Costs (undefined and not tracked – see Brenda Lee Litigation Costs email)
- Other Settlement Costs ($17,400; see attached Litigation file for settlement terms)
Yes. There were multiple points in time where the decisions of the County Commissioners set the course for the legal conflict. The first decision by the Commissioners was in 2021, following months of delay in making a decision. Their decision was to not require the subdivision process to be followed even though that was the recommendation from Planning and Zoning. The recommendation from the Planning and Zoning was to rezone from A1 to A2 and follow the subdivision process for that development. The Commissioners made that decision even though they knew there were concerns by parties involved. Commissioners again refused to take actions to reroute the road in 2024, which would have resolved this conflict. The re-routing of the road was discussed in a December 22, 2023 special meeting and subsequent Commissioner meetings and road validation in 2024, and the Commissioners still declined to address the issue. The Commissioners and Prosecutor Pearce were aware of the continuing conflict in early 2025 but took no action to resolve the issue until the lawsuit. See attached BOCC Minutes Feb 5 2024 and BOCC Minutes Dec 22 2023
No. Inaccurate statements have been made by both Wilkerson and PA Pearce regarding jury trials. A review of the record shows that there were jury convictions in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2023, and 2024. The reduced jury trial activity in 2020 and 2021 was due to the prohibitions in place during the covid shutdown. The attached public record file includes the July 7, 2025 BOCC meeting minutes containing an incorrect statement by Wilkerson, claiming no felony jury trial convictions in over a decade. The attached court record, which contradicts Wilkerson’s statement, shows the list of cases and jury trial convictions between 2016 and 2024. Pearce also made an inaccurate statement regarding jury trials during his February 24, 2026 Vendome forum speech, captured on an audio recording. In fact the record shows there were at least 7 jury trials during that period from 2016 to 2024. The file provided in the attachment (Washington County Jury Trial Information 2016 to 2024) contains the July 7, 2025 BOCC Meeting Minutes and the 2016 to 2024 case history That file clearly shows that the statements made by Wilkerson and Pearce are incorrect and not supported by the public record.
When asked for this data, the Prosecutor’s Office provided a list of 17 cases spanning the 14-month period from 01/13/2025 through 02/24/2026. However, upon examination of the data, it can be seen that only two cases out of the 17 listed were actually new cases and convictions in 2025/2026. The other 15 cases were convictions in prior years, under Delton Walker’s tenure as the Prosecuting Attorney. Those 15 prior-year convicted defendants had violated terms of their probation and as a result, were back in front of a judge in 2025 as a normal part of the judicial process. As a result of the probation violations, the judge returned the convicted defendants to the department of corrections to serve their remaining sentence of their original conviction under Walker. Case numbers CR44-25-0704 and CR44-25-0256 are the only two new convictions under True Pearce between 01/13/2025 and 02/24/2026. The attached file titled “Convictions Report Records Request” contains the information in support of this FAQ.
Yes. Under Idaho Code 59-902, elected officials such as True Pearce may resign from office. Idaho Code 59-906 describes the process for filling vacancies such as one which would be created by the resignation or recall of True Pearce. See details of the Idaho code at links IC 59-902 and IC 59-906.
It would seem that if their propaganda were accurate, True would have won in court and Delton would have lost, unless the entire judicial system is incorrect and only True Pearce knows what is right. That may explain much of the divide in the county right now. We have not accepted the idea that the judicial system is irrelevant and that only True’s opinion matters. The three attached files are the court’s decisions on the charges alleged by True. The case was “DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.” “Dismissed with prejudice” means a lawsuit or criminal charge is permanently terminated by a court, and the prosecutor (True) is barred from refiling the same case or claim again. It is a final, “on the merits” decision and often arises due to lack of evidence, or serious procedural violations.