Fremont County board and Fair Board spar over draft fair reorganization plan; Fair Board urges collaboration

Commissioners and Fair Board members clashed at length over a draft proposal that would change how the Fremont County Fair and its annex are managed, with the Fair Board urging collaboration and the commission urging caution and adherence to governance procedures.

The dispute began after the commission read a draft fair reorganization proposal it described as an effort "to begin a dialogue with the fair board that would lead towards agreement" and said it was not opening the draft for public comment that day. Fair Board representatives, who had come to the meeting to present updates, responded that they had not been adequately consulted and that a late Friday distribution of the draft had alarmed volunteers and stakeholders.

"The fair is bigger than all of us," a Fair Board representative told the commissioners, outlining months of volunteer work and asking the commission to "allow us to do so with positive guidance and without unjustified and negative interference." The Fair Board requested clearer lines of communication, regular attendance by commissioners at Fair Board meetings and the appointment of an interim fair manager and a part-time janitor for the upcoming fair season.

Commissioners said their draft was intended to make the Fair Board’s job easier and to address budgetary uncertainty facing county government. One commissioner warned that changes in state revenue or upcoming ballot measures could sharply reduce county funds and that the commission had a duty to avoid legal or financial exposure. "Everything has to be done correctly," the chair said, adding that governance, HR and fiscal controls must be in place before shifting management responsibilities.

The two sides also disagreed about how information reached the public. A Fair Board member said an employee had circulated concerns and that social media posts had amplified confusion; commissioners urged direct phone calls and face-to-face meetings instead of relying on public platforms. Multiple participants proposed immediate steps: setting a schedule for joint meetings, forming a small working group (two commissioners and two Fair Board members) to vet the draft, and restoring additional Fair Board members to quorum strength so discussions could proceed informally.

The commissioners agreed to pursue interviews to fill Fair Board vacancies and to attempt to schedule meetings that accommodate the volunteer board’s availability. They also signaled willingness to hold short executive discussion sessions on specific personnel or legal issues, and to continue the dialogue at follow-up meetings.

The most immediate outcome was procedural: the commission and Fair Board committed to further meetings and to try to rebuild trust before any final governance changes were adopted. The commission indicated it will return to the issue on the agenda and that any legal questions arising from the draft would be resolved through the county attorney or future executive session if necessary.

The exchange made clear the Fair Board’s priority is protecting youth programming and volunteer contributions, while the commissioners emphasized fiduciary responsibility and compliance with county policy and law. Both sides said they want the fair to succeed and pledged to continue talks.