The University community has a right to know about the circumstances surrounding the Aug. 8 announced resignation of Agustin Galvan as assistant director of Student Management in Residential Education. Few would talk openly to The Stanford Weekly about the clouded departure of the once-popular official, and this sets a troubling precedent for the openness of information that this newspaper strives for and expects.

The University has a responsibility to be up-front and open when its officials are implicated in wrongdoing. In this case, Galvan allegedly used his influence as a representative of the University to influence student leaders and admittedly earned weekend ‘perks’ at Lake Tahoe cabins (see ‘Snow trip perks raise questions,’ May 3).

Director of Residential Education and Student Affairs Jane Camarillo refused to provide important details about whether there was an investigation, as well as what the investigation did or did not conclude. She justified the potential cover up of important information under the guise of privacy. If Galvan did something wrong, why not admit it to the students who were unduly pressured? If he was innocent, why not vigorously defend him and clear his name?

Was Galvan forced out? No one will say. Is his resignation primarily due to the ski trip scandal? What were the terms of his departure? Did he violate the Fundamental Standard? We don’t know. As much as the University would like to handle this discretely and privately, there are important questions that must be answered.

It’s true that the University is a private institution. It’s true that personnel matters can sometimes be complex, and there are sometimes valid justifications for keeping some information private. But this is a public figure engaging in public behavior in the name of the University. Stanford stakeholders, and the Stanford community, deserve transparency, and they deserve answers from school officials.

If there was wrongdoing, what precautions are being taken to prevent these kinds of payola schemes in the future? Will there be clearer language established for what constitutes a conflict of interest? There are shades of gray about what might and might not be acceptable. Are the University’s lawyers going to revise guidelines so that there is consistency and clarity in the rules?

The Daily broke the snow trip story in May, and it’s important that we follow up. Our role as a newspaper is as a watchdog, and this situation needs to be watched.

Respectfully,

James Hohmann

Summer Editor

eic@ daily.stanford.edu