Kootenai County Commissioner Bruce Mattare presents himself as a conservative defender of limited government, slow growth, and fiscal restraint. But when you examine the roles he currently holds and the policies he’s advancing, a far more complex picture emerges.

In 2026, Bruce Mattare simultaneously:

• Serves as Kootenai County Commissioner

• Controls votes on the Sheriff’s Office budget (which consumes roughly 60% of the county budget)

• Holds special deputy status under Sheriff Bob Norris

• Advises on law enforcement messaging

• Chairs the Kootenai Metropolitan Planning Organization (KMPO) Board

• Advocates for “proactive policing” expansion

• Promotes data-driven public safety infrastructure

• Campaigns on slow growth — while receiving endorsements from major developers

• Supports importing elements of the Los Angeles County Sheriff model

The question for voters is no longer whether Mattare is involved. The question is how much of Kootenai County’s power structure flows through him?

The Special Deputy Status: A Structural Conflict of Interest

Bruce Mattare is the only elected official in Kootenai County holding special deputy status under Sheriff Bob Norris. (See CDA Press coverage.)

That designation:

• Was granted after Mattare served as Norris’ campaign manager

• Includes advisory input on messaging

• Requires signing a nondisclosure agreement

• Has never been publicly defined in operational scope

At the same time, Mattare serves as County Commissioner, voting on and approving the Sheriff’s Office budget.

That dual alignment might appear symbolic until you watch it play out in real time.

At a recent meeting regarding Hayden’s $1 million-plus law enforcement contract, City Councilman Matt Roetter asked for documentation verifying overtime billing and coverage minutes. It was a straightforward fiscal question: How are the hours being calculated? (watch the BOCC 2/17/26 meeting here.)

Sheriff Bob Norris was present.

Instead of answering directly, Norris avoided the question, and at points appeared to belittle Roetter for even asking it. Then Mattare stepped in; not as a neutral commissioner overseeing public funds, not as a budget authority demanding documentation, but as an advocate for the Sheriff.

He reframed the issue, emphasizing that Hayden was receiving “premier law enforcement” service, as though the quality of policing should substitute for financial verification. He further stated he was “working vigorously” with Motorola to help generate the requested reports. In that moment, the structural conflict became visible. Mattare was not acting as a fiscal overseer. He was acting as a liaison for KCSO.

This raises unavoidable governance questions:

• Why is a County Commissioner defending the Sheriff instead of requiring documentation?

• Why is that same commissioner personally “working with” the Sheriff’s software vendor?

• Why would a modern law enforcement system using Motorola platforms lack the ability to produce billing verification?

• And if reporting tools were insufficient, why were contracts structured without them?

In Idaho’s county governance framework, commissioners fund departments. They do not function as operational extensions of those departments.

When a commissioner holds special deputy status, advises on messaging, votes on the Sheriff’s budget, and then publicly advocates on the Sheriff’s behalf during billing disputes, the line between oversight and alliance disappears. That’s not a rhetorical conflict, it’s a structural one. And structural conflicts are far more consequential than political disagreements.

The LA County Model and the Leroy Baca Era

In a recent commissioner meeting, Mattare referenced bringing elements of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department model — specifically materials described as the “ABC’s of law enforcement” — into consideration for KCSO. (watch the 2/17/26 BOCC meeting here.)

Sheriff Bob Norris served 30 years with LASD. Former LASD Sheriff Leroy Baca was later convicted in federal court for obstruction of justice tied to interference with an FBI investigation. LASD under Baca became nationally known for jail abuse scandals, federal oversight investigations, and systemic mismanagement. The question is not whether LASD had operational strengths. The question is why Kootenai County is looking to adopt frameworks from one of the most controversial large law enforcement administrations in modern history, while publicly campaigning against “liberal big city policies.”

The “Proactive Policing” Push

In recent campaign blog posts, Mattare has written extensively about: (read Mattare’s campaign blog post here.)

• “Proactive policing”

• Preventing crime before it occurs

• Intelligence-led enforcement

• Increasing staffing to create excess enforcement capacity

• Data-driven metrics for public safety expansion

He contrasts proactive policing with reactive policing, arguing that crime must be deterred before it happens. On its face, this sounds reasonable, but when paired with:

• Advanced surveillance technology

• ALPR systems

• AI-driven reporting tools

• Calls for greater staffing and enforcement

• Heavy public safety budget concentration

The trajectory begins to resemble predictive policing infrastructure. The phrase “prevent crime before it occurs” has historically required:

• Data aggregation

• Behavioral tracking

• Intelligence profiling

• Expanded surveillance tools

Public safety already consumes roughly 60% of the county’s budget. Mattare argues for expanding staffing and proactive capacity, while simultaneously campaigning on lower taxes, and in the position of County Commissioner, votes on the sheriff’s budget.

KMPO: Transportation Planning and Growth Infrastructure

By statute and structure, one of the three Kootenai County Commissioners serves on the Kootenai Metropolitan Planning Organization (KMPO) Board. That is normal. It is part of how regional transportation planning is coordinated between local governments.

In 2026, that commissioner is Bruce Mattare. He is also serving as Chairman of both the KMPO Board and the Kootenai County Board of Commissioners.

KMPO is responsible for:

• Regional transportation planning

• Federal compliance

• Long-term infrastructure programming

• Coordinated land-use alignment

• Project development and prioritization

Through its Unified Planning Work Program (UPWP), KMPO outlines multi-year transportation and corridor expansion strategies. Transportation planning is not abstract policy, it directly shapes where development accelerates, how density is accommodated, and how federal funding flows into growth corridors.

Road capacity, corridor expansion, interchange planning, and federal alignment influence where housing projects become viable and where commercial development scales. None of this is unusual as it is how metropolitan planning organizations function. The policy tension arises elsewhere.

Commissioner Mattare publicly campaigns on:

• Slowing growth

• Preserving rural character

• Preventing density-driven policy shifts

At the same time, regional transportation planning, by design, enables expansion, development viability, and corridor-based growth. That reality does not automatically create a conflict. But it does raise an important policy question. If density contributes to political and cultural change, and infrastructure programming enables density, how are those two positions reconciled?

This is not about whether he “should” be on the KMPO board. One commissioner must serve in that role. The question is about influence, direction, and priorities, particularly when the same individual chairs both the county commission and the regional transportation authority shaping long-term growth patterns.

Growth infrastructure and “slow growth” messaging do not inherently move in the same direction. How those competing dynamics are managed matters.

Developer Endorsements and Growth Policy

Among Mattare’s endorsements are:

• Real estate developers

• Construction company owners

• Property investment firms

• Business associations

• Growth-sector stakeholders

Simultaneously, his campaign messaging warns that increased density leads to liberal policy shifts and higher taxes. This produces a dual narrative.

Mattare’s public messaging is to reserve rural values and slow growth. Yet he has structural influence while chairing regional growth infrastructure planning and he’s backed by development interests. Voters deserve clarity on how those two realities intersect.

The Political Network

Bruce Mattare’s influence extends across:

• The Sheriff’s Office

• Law enforcement unions (political endorsement)

• Political action committees

• County budgeting authority

• Transportation planning

• Public safety expansion

• Campaign messaging networks

He is not merely a commissioner voting on ordinances. He operates at the intersection of:

• Law enforcement policy

• Growth infrastructure

• Budget allocation

• Political campaign machinery

Few elected officials in Kootenai County hold that level of cross-domain influence.

The Core Question for 2026

Bruce Mattare campaigns as:

• Anti-liberal

• Pro-Second Amendment

• Anti-government overreach

• Pro-limited government

• Anti-urban policy models

Yet in practice:

• He promotes proactive policing expansion.

• He supports intelligence-driven enforcement.

• He works directly with law enforcement technology vendors.

• He references importing major metro policing frameworks.

• He chairs regional infrastructure planning.

• Public safety dominates the county budget under his watch.

Bruce Mattare speaks the language of conservatism, but the machinery he supports points toward expanded surveillance, concentrated authority, and proactive enforcement, not limited government.