Conflict of interest provisions are best when they are clear and set certain boundaries. The appearance and perception of a conflict doesn’t mean that a conflict of interest exists. Appearances can be misconstrued or misunderstood. This was made particularly evident last May by the UCLA Undergraduate Students Association Council’s Judicial Board in its opinion after finding Singh and Rogers not guilty on conflict of interest charges and determining that the USAC bylaws were ambiguous to the point of being easily misinterpreted.

As reported in a recent UCLA Daily Bruin article, the USAC is following suggestions presented by its Judicial Board, and may soon change its bylaws to remove the commonly used terms “appearance” and “perception” in relation to conflicts of interest and instead stipulate that conflicts of interest only come from an ongoing contractual or financial obligation, or a financial interest in a decision made as an elected official. If made, this distinction in the bylaws would help to protect designated officials from possible penalization for the mere “appearance” of a conflict, rather than an actual conflict of interest.