When the integrity of one of our elected officials comes into question, the credibility of the whole council can be damaged.
The Daily Bruin reported that Financial Supports Commissioner Rustom Z. Birdie was planning to promote a private website, Jobbook.com, in exchange for shares of stock in the company.
Birdie first told The Bruin that he chose to defer his acceptance of the shares until his term on the Undergraduate Students Association Council ends, failing to see the clear conflict of interest in this agreement. It makes no difference whether he agreed to accept the shares during or after his term ““ either way he would receive compensation for his work.
Birdie is ignorant of what it means to be an elected official and reflects poorly on USAC. He may have been well-intentioned, but his negligence calls into question the training and internal support our representatives receive.
Though he has since cut ties with Jobbook, it is embarrassing that his relationship with the company lasted for several months without him having sought counsel from fellow USAC members.
Neither the council nor Birdie’s advisers were aware of his work with Jobbook, though he said he planned to enlist an FSC member to help him promote the site.
Clearly, the level of communication within the council is far below where it should be. USAC cannot practice transparency when its members are unaware of the actions their colleagues undertake.
After the issue was brought to light in Tuesday’s Daily Bruin, the council elected to go into a closed session to discuss the matter privately during their weekly meeting ““ one that is always open to the public.
The councilmembers told Bruin reporters and other guests to leave the room while they spoke for about an hour and a half. This unnecessary move hides the problem from students.
USAC is not restricted by laws applied to local and student governments, including those at community colleges and California State Universities, that define when it is acceptable for a closed session to take place. However, there is a precedent, and a respect, for open meetings.
And while the laws permit a closed session to deal with personnel issues, that right to privacy is not protected when an elected official’s actions come under fire. Closed sessions are not safety nets to hide the council’s blunders.
Since being contacted by The Bruin on Monday, no additional comment from the council was given until Wednesday night. Today, the council is expected to release a statement about submitting the case to the Judicial Board for investigation.
This is the appropriate channel for handling the case and shows USAC recognizes the inherent conflict of interest in an internal evaluation of Birdie’s actions.
However, that it took so long for a statement to be made suggests the council has been too focused on damage control and not enough on being forthright about how it plans to address the situation.
We hope its future actions set a precedent of instilling the proper integrity and understanding it takes to be an accountable elected official.