The central lesson from the mess that is the A.S.-Micro 101 enterprise should not be about ethics, but about the dysfunction that plagues A.S.-run businesses.

As Micro 101 shows, the enterprise office is stuck between a rock and a hard place, without clear vision or purpose. The A.S. Council must urgently answer the following questions: Is the office designed to build successful businesses and student entrepreneurship opportunities — irrespective of their value to the student body? Should they generate a healthy profit, instead of simply breaking even?

Part of the problem is the structure of enterprises. Many run as partnerships with outside departments, which dilutes risk and costs — the goal of the partnership — but also reduces authority and accountability. No true business venture would survive under such an arrangement.

But the bigger challenges lie in the structure of the enterprise operations office. Currently, its commissionership serves as a stepping-stone for students interested in higher office, elected largely on campaign promises, not on business qualifications. Once in office, candidates lack the institutional knowledge to direct managers, who actually run each enterprise.

An easy solution is to make the office an appointed one — like the commissioner of advocacy, another position that requires specialized skill. Raising the office’s stature to the level of a vice presidency would also help, attracting more qualified candidates.

A second problem, though, is more difficult to solve: the failure of imagination, one made clear by comparing UCSD’s office to the one run by Stanford University’s student government, the model on which our office was based. The big debate in last year’s A.S. election was the viability of an ice cream cart in Price Center; at Stanford, the enterprises office runs a $6-million banking and investment venture. The contrast is stark enough.