Lincolnite

While I agree with the sentiment of including an “outsider” perspective, Perlman clearly has an incentive to have certain opinions as a fair board member that benefit his other role as UNL chancellor.

I can’t think of any other voting board-type situation where such a conflict would be tolerated. He would at least have to recuse himself from voting on situations that could benefit his other position, and at this point with the state fair, that would include essentially everything.

I agree that Perlman should resign. He has a definite conflict of interest. I don’t see how he can be objective and fair (no pun intended)in both roles. 

But as far as stirring the pot, Perlman certainly does that. He was put on the board of a local company I work for, and he ran roughshod over the founder and the employees. He’s a determined sort of man when he’s following his vision of what should be - I’m sure our State Fair will be moving in the future.

So if Harvey Perlman wanted to keep the State Fair right where it was and offered to sweep up the midway during the fair, would he be asked to resign? I’m going to say no.

Well Gene, presumably in the situation you’ve presented, he also wouldn’t be lobbying to move the fair, which means there wouldn’t be a conflict of interest.

So thanks for stating the obvious.

So he should resign because you don’t like his position on the issue? If the law of the great State of Nebraska says that he has to serve on the Board, what’s he supposed to do exactly, not serve and break the law?

No, he should resign because he seeks to directly gain in another role by the votes he casts in his board member role.

Isn’t that what a conflict of interest is?

According to the law:

Certain categories of public officials have a potential conflict of interest if they are faced with taking an official action or making an official decision which may result in a financial benefit or detriment to the public official or public employee, a member of his or her immediate family, ***or business with which he or she is associated.*** A public official or employee with a potential conflict of interest is required to disclose the conflict in writing. ***If he of she has an actual conflict of interest, he or she is required to abstain from participating or voting on the matter.***

Also,

Public officials and public employees may not use, or authorize the use of public resources, personnel, property or funds under their official care and contol for:

  1. Personal Financial gain or the financial gain of an immediate family member or business association.

The items you cite refer to “business” associations. Is the University of Nebraska-Lincoln a business? I say no, but I think the debate on that question could be very interesting.

He should maybe recuse himself from votes on this topic, but I don’t think he can resign if the law states that he has to be there.

I think the “business” distinction in this case is irrelevant - the entity he represents will have a huge financial gain as a result. I imagine if someone pushed it, a court would see the University as fulfilling the requirements of a “business” in this case (though the fair board might not be in the “certain categories”).

Again, I think the issue raised by that section is financial gain instead public/private entity—plus the whole purpose of taking over the state fair land is to expand public/private partnerships. There will be PLENTY of private businesses gaining from that land and Perlman is essentially acting as their agent.

I agree that abstaining from relevant votes would work, but again, pretty much every vote the fair board takes at this point would have some direct effect on its future at the current fairgrounds.

I think the board would be much better served by an outside voice who could actually place votes, regardless of their opinion on the future of the fairgrounds.

I’m not sure why the requirement was made or when, but maybe the reason the Chancellor is required to search on the board is precisely because of this sort of issue.

It’s no secret than UNL is growing and doesn’t have too many spaces to expand. I think (and I realized I’m biased here and others may think differently) that UNL is more important to the State of Nebraska than the State Fair. (did I open up a can of worms there?)

I think if the original intent was to allow the university to sabotage the interests of the state fair, there would be much more effective and far less passive-aggressive ways to do so.

This is Nebraska, Neal. We thrive on passive-aggressive solutions.

I agree with Karin. I think UNL is more important to the state, and it’s certainly more important to the economy of the city. Let’s say the fair were to move elsewhere in Lincoln. Would it hurt the fair to have more room? New buildings? Couldn’t that be viewed as an opportunity for the fair and the University? Isn’t it possible that Perlman wants the best for all parties and it’s not ‘just’ a land grab?

We can’t assume the Fair will stay in Lincoln when it moves. I think it’s quite possible that Lincoln will lose the Fair and the money it brings in. And from what I’ve observed regarding Perlman…it’s just a land grab.

As nostalgic as I am for the state fair and its current location, it seems like a waste of valuable space to sit basically unused for most of the year.

The university needs room to grow and it has few options in its land-locked position.

Karin is right, the university is much more important to the state and the economy than the state fair.

I would much rather have the university and the fair board come to an agreement than see the university incur the cost of acquiring private property either through purchase or - God forbid - eminent domain. I’m not a fan of eminent domain and I have NOT heard that term bandied about yet, but it is nonetheless an option when it comes to acquiring private property.