NATE JENKINS / Lincoln Journal Star | Posted: Monday, April 10, 2006 7:00 pm
The Legislature will be handed 10 reasons why University of Nebraska Regent David Hergert should be impeached.
On Monday, the Legislature’s Executive Board approved 6-3 the 10 articles of impeachment that will go to all 49 state lawmakers for consideration. The Legislature is expected to debate the articles, which amount to allegations against Hergert, on Wednesday.
Should at least 25 members of the Legislature pass a resolution adopting the articles, Hergert will be suspended as a regent. He would then face a trial before the state Supreme Court, which would make the ultimate decision about whether Hergert should be permanently removed from office.
The state constitution says impeachable offenses are ones committed in office. They also must relate to the duties of the office. An attorney hired by an arm of the Legislature recommended lawmakers not pursue impeachment, partly because all but one of Hergert’s campaign-finance violations occurred before he took office in early 2005 after beating incumbent Don Blank.
The one offense that allegedly occurred after he took office, said the attorney, Clarence Mock, would be considered unrelated to the duties of the office by the state Supreme Court.
A summary of the 10 impeachment articles:
n Hergert’s oath of office after being elected was “materially false” because he swore that he had not “improperly influenced in any way the vote of any elector” but actually did during the campaign. By filing false, misleading and late campaign reports, among other things, Hergert influenced and deceived the voters, media, election watch groups and the state Accountability and Disclosure Commission.
n Hergert committed mail fraud by sending campaign statements in the mail that contained false and fraudulent promises. The mailings were “part of Hergert’s scheme or artifice to defraud the (Accountability and Disclosure Commission) and the electors.” The article refers specifically to a campaign statement Hergert allegedly put in the mail and was received by the state after he took office in January 2005.
n The regent engaged in false reporting by sending a campaign statement, received by the state after he took office in January 2005, that contained material information Hergert knew to be false. “Hergert knowingly furnished this materially false information … with the intent to impede the investigation of an actual criminal matter.”
n Hergert falsely reported information during an interview by the Nebraska State Patrol and Attorney General’s Office. The interview was conducted as part of a criminal investigation of Hergert initiated by Attorney General Jon Bruning. The investigation resulted in no formal charges against Hergert after a judge thwarted Bruning’s attempt to have a grand jury investigation.
n Hergert’s January 2005 campaign statement constituted intentional obstruction of government operations.
n Hergert also obstructed government operations by providing during the investigation interview “false and intentionally misleading statements designed to obstruct, impair, or pervert the administration of law or other governmental functions.”
n Some of Hergert’s actions related to campaign finance during the 2004 campaign caused Blank to miss out on public funds.
n Four of the articles refer to violations of the campaign-finance law, including violations that caused Blank to miss out on public campaign dollars.
In a summary of the findings against Hergert, contained in the impeachment resolution, Hergert is said to have committed actions that tainted the election.
“He entered the office under false pretense, held office while continuing to commit more violations of the law, and his conduct constitutes obstruction of the general governance of the university, and of the state of Nebraska,” the resolution says.
Hergert’s Lincoln attorney, W. Scott Davis, had not read the impeachment resolution when contacted Monday. Told that one of the articles alleges the January campaign statement was an impeachable offense because it was received after Hergert took office, Davis repeated what both he and Hergert have said in the past — that the regent signed the campaign statement before taking office.
As for the allegation Hergert gave a false oath of office when he was sworn in as regent, Davis said the language is clear that one must be convicted of a crime related to improperly influencing voters to be booted from office for violating the oath.
“They would have to prove in a court of law … that there was criminal wrongdoing in the election process,” Davis said. “No one has alleged there was ballot fraud or stuffing of the ballot boxes.”
Reach Nate Jenkins at 473-7223 or njenkins@journalstar.com.