State College Borough Council member R. Thomas Berner didn't need tarot cards to know his fate -- he just needed to say "Aye."

Berner showed disregard for borough constituents last week when he broke a tie and granted himself a four-and-a-half-month leave of absence from the council. By breaking the tie, Berner indicated the borough's best interests do not concern him. Had he truly been concerned about the community, Berner would have resigned his position last year and allowed local voters to elect a replacement.

The fact that he cast the deciding vote shows what little regard he actually has for borough politics. As Ruth Lavin said during the discussion of his leave, not one of the borough council members is "indispensable." And now, with three Republican council members and three Democrats, the event of a tie is a possibility where it never was before. And because, according to the borough's home-rule charter, the mayor does not have the power to break a tie, any tie motion will die.

Berner's vote on his own fate is not legally a conflict of interest because it does not involve a financial matter. It none the less poses equally troubling moral and ethical questions. How can any individual responsibly vote on a matter concerning him or herself?

Berner learned in March he would be leaving for China this month. It was not fair to constituents or his fellow council members for him to keep his options open and wait this long to decide his council plans.

By granting Berner a leave of absence, the borough council is sending a message to voters that Berner is more important than local government. It sets a dangerous precedent.

In the end, Berner didn't need a fortune teller to guarantee his future -- he just sacrificed the democratic representation of borough residents to secure his own future in local government.