The undergraduate student government plans to vote Tuesday on bylaw changes that would make it easier for councilmembers to engage in conflicts of interest and erode students’ trust in their elected officials.
The proposed changes would make it harder for students to hold their leaders to reasonable ethical standards and allow members of the Undergraduate Students Association Council to hide behind wording that protects them from repercussions, such as removal from office or a ruined reputation.
Instead of approving the planned amendments that would lower the bar for councilmembers engaging in potentially inappropriate behavior, the council should amend its bylaws Tuesday to ensure that all USAC members have to disclose potential conflicts of interest as a preliminary measure.
Even in cases where councilmembers are receiving money or other benefits from outside organizations or groups but do not feel beholden to those groups in any way, disclosure should be at the forefront of every decision.
The USAC bylaws currently say councilmembers should not “have an unauthorized financial interest or obligation which might cause divided loyalty or even the appearance of divided loyalty.”
But the proposed amendments would get rid of the need for councilmembers to avoid “the appearance of divided loyalty.” Under the changes, councilmembers would only face repercussions if they are directly caught in a conflict when making a decision as a public official. Additionally, a conflict would only be deemed to exist if councilmembers have an ongoing financial or contractual obligation.
The proposed amendments stem from wording in a spring Judicial Board decision that was incompetent at best, and threatening to the principles of student government at worst. In a conflict of interest case against two councilmembers who had taken free trips to Israel before voting on a controversial divestment resolution, the board said holding students accountable for “appearance” of conflicts of interest could “(set) a danger to the integrity of the student government.”
Appearance is not always reality, but it still matters. The ongoing perception that councilmembers take money from outside organizations or individuals with blatant political agendas is important to many students. And any bylaw change that makes it OK for councilmembers to engage in conduct that suggests their votes are for sale is wrong.
If USAC votes to get rid of “appearance” and “perception” in its bylaws, it does not care about damaging students’ trust in their elected officials.
Conflicts of interest are rarely as brazen as a signed contract that says “I will give you money if you vote this way.” It’s the job of our elected and appointed officials to think of realistic ways to prevent themselves and future leaders from betraying students’ trust.
Councilmembers have an opportunity here to think about what kinds of ethical standards they should hold themselves to. They should ask themselves what they are really trying to accomplish with this vote. Instead of inviting councilmembers to violate the spirit of the bylaws with technical distinctions, the rules should encourage an open government.
Based on previous councilmember actions and on the changes currently proposed, it is obvious that councilmembers do not see it as their responsibility to step forward and be open about potential conflicts of interest. They should hold themselves to a higher standard than that.
I just read the opinion on the Judicial Board site, and I think you bring up some good points, but are misled in some.
Sunny Singh and Lauren Rogers weren’t approached by those two organizations and just handed the free trips. If they were, that would be the equivalent to those groups trying to buy their votes. That’s lobbying. But Sunny Singh and Lauren Rogers had to APPLY for the trips. This connection between the councilmembers and the trips was done on part of the councilmembers. I think that makes it a very different situation.
You’re right in that if a group decided to hand a council member a free trip, then that is most likely a conflict of interest, I would say, but that’s not the same thing when the councilmember is applying for the free trip.