The decision by Ian W. Nichols ’06 to resign on Sunday as Undergraduate Council (UC) Vice President was the best possible outcome for both the UC and the student body at large. As expected, Nichols turned out to be a contrarian Vice President, with a vision for the Council that did not line up with what the rest of the UC Executive Board had in mind. If the UC’s top leadership expected Nichols to be the same sort of Vice President as former VP Michael R. Blickstead ’05—a former member of the Campus Life Committee (CLC)—they were mistaken. The difference in backgrounds between Blickstead and Nichols—Nichols had been elevated to VP from his position as Vice Chair of the Finance Committee (FiCom)—meant that the two differed widely in their specialties and their basic understandings of the role of the UC Vice President.

Nichols’ more fiscally conservative perspective could have been a valuable, balancing addition to the leadership of the UC. Indeed, when we endorsed him last December for Vice President, we believed that the unique skill set he brought to the table might help reform the FiCom grants process and empower UC representatives to be more responsible with students’ money. Nichols’ conflict with the rest of the Executive Board was to be expected to some extent. But Nichols widened this conflict through his own actions. He failed to communicate effectively or forge common ground with his peer officers on the UC, and he missed Springfest, an event organized in the past by the Vice President and an event for which Nichols himself voted to allocate funds.

In light of these difficulties, we’re glad the UC recently passed a bill ending split-ticket voting for UC President and Vice President. Ultimately, it’s most important for the top executives on the UC to share a positive working relationship and an at least somewhat unified vision for the Council. There should be a creative tension between the UC President and Vice President, but that tension must exist within a milieu of mutual respect and a common set of priorities. Single-ticket voting will ensure that the President and the VP are ready to work together from the beginning.

As the UC gears up to elect a new Vice President at its next meeting, UC representatives should remember that the student body voted a split ticket into power for a reason. Though the UC has won deserved acclamation from many sides this past semester, nagging questions about fiscal responsibility remain in light of unwise expenditures related to the Springfest Afterparty and FiCom’s compulsory 35 percent cut in awards for its last grants package.

These are the kinds of questions that any new Vice President should not be afraid to ask. While doing so, though, this new Vice President must also be willing to play a more active and cooperative role in all facets of UC business than Nichols did. We regret that Nichols’ resignation will deprive the Executive Board of its chief dissenting voice, but the overriding concern will always be the efficient and energetic operation of a council from whose efforts we all benefit.