During an emotional and open discussion Tuesday night, Financial Supports Commissioner Rustom Z. Birdie resigned from his position in the undergraduate student government.
Birdie’s removal was brought to the table early in the discussion, and this board commends the Undergraduate Students Association Council for taking the matter seriously. They carefully considered the ramifications Birdie’s removal would have on the council, his office and the student body prior to his decision to resign.
The council also overturned the rules stating that their discussion about what action to take would be held in closed session, allowing the meeting to remain open to the public.
Birdie’s resignation stemmed from controversy over his contract with an Internet startup company that would have provided him with shares of the company in exchange for promoting it to students.
A case was submitted to USAC’s Student Judicial Board, which concluded Friday that Birdie was guilty of “wrongdoing,” an offense that left the council to determine punitive action. Additionally, Birdie repeatedly misled councilmembers and university officials when the issue came to light, which was a key factor in councilmembers’ criticism of his actions.
There is still much for USAC to do. To begin with, Birdie’s initial dealings with Jobbook, though unethical, did not violate USAC bylaws. Councilmembers should amend these laws to spell out ethical policies, such as what constitutes conflict of interest, and future councilmembers should receive better training on these matters.
Ethical guidelines are vital to ensure councilmembers fairly represent students and demonstrate an understanding of how to handle potentially complex situations.
This affair also revealed that the undergraduate government lacks a system of checks and balances. The Judicial Board has no authority independent of the council, which inhibits the democratic ideal of separated powers.
Ultimately, elected officials have the final say ““ they are able to overturn any Judicial Board ruling with a two-thirds vote.
So although the council acted appropriately in this case, nothing in the current system required them to act at all. To have done nothing would have been grossly irresponsible, but not against the rules.
This indicates that the rules must change. Councilmembers should give the Judicial Board the authority to enforce its decisions.
Without this, our student government is democratically elected, but its officials are not truly accountable to their electorate.
Again, we applaud the council for handling this matter effectively.
We advise they go one step further by amending the laws that govern them so as to prevent future incidents like this from recurring.