Recently, the Maroon reported on my impeachment and removal from Undergraduate Student Government (USG). The charges leveled against me fall into four categories: changing USG’s bylaws illegally, directing money or support to RSOs based on favoritism, restricting access to documents, and appointing friends to USG committees. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to share my perspective during the impeachment hearing nor in the Maroon’s original article, but I’d like to do so now, not to relitigate the past but to clarify the decisions I made and the principles behind them. I hope this moment can spark a broader conversation about how USG serves students—and how its systems ought to be improved.
To understand my decisions, it’s worth looking at the work I undertook in USG since my membership started in 2022. I joined hoping to help build a better, more accountable student government. As an administrator, I began on the Sports Club Finance Committee, helping draft its first guidelines and online presence. I went on to serve on over half of all USG committees and chaired a quarter of them. Eventually, I was asked to serve as vice president of student organizations (VPSO) by Elijah Jenkins, the USG president.
Much of the work I led—standardizing finances, improving election systems, and implementing reforms like the Fiscal Reform Act of 2025—was driven by the belief that students deserve a student government that works. This year, I discovered over $15,000 in unused USG funds and helped ensure they were redirected to benefit RSOs.
I often stepped in to take on responsibilities beyond my formal role, especially when USG leadership felt there were gaps that needed to be filled. At the request of three different USG presidents, I helped draft budgets, manage public communications, and contribute to policy planning. The University also asked me to serve on working groups focused on RSO management. I did this work because I believed in making the system more navigable and fair for student leaders.
In my impeachment, one of the central charges was that I changed bylaws illegally, but the reality is more procedural: I was frequently asked, by USG executives or members of College Council, to draft potential bylaw changes, especially related to elections and fiscal reform. Because of my role in elections oversight, I couldn’t propose or vote on these changes myself, but I regularly provided ideas and technical input when requested—by both students and USG leadership. All proposed changes went through the established approval process and were voted on by College Council, often with unanimous support. Council members had access to draft language, could offer edits, and often did. These votes are public, and the records remain available for anyone to review.
The reforms I worked on were aimed at making USG more transparent and functional. Many committees I joined lacked clear procedures, and part of my work involved helping to create structure and consistency. As chair of the Elections & Rules Committee (E&R), I improved recordkeeping and dispute resolution; created a secretary position in January, which I filled temporarily at its creation; and collected long-term election data. E&R, under my leadership, also responded to student requests, such as simplifying the Election Code into plain language.
Similarly, for the annual funding process, I drafted a bylaw together with the then VPSO requiring a public calendar to prevent last-minute budget decisions. These were collaborative efforts meant to make USG more accessible and accountable to the students it serves.
Even so, concerns were raised about how funding decisions were made during my time in USG, and I want to clarify how the funding process works. The annual funding process involves multiple committees making preliminary recommendations, which are then reviewed and finalized by College Council. As a non-voting chair, my role was to facilitate and provide input for these decisions rather than to direct them. My comments were always intended to provide context and promote clarity, not to dictate outcomes. Whether a committee agreed or disagreed with my input was entirely their decision. One example cited in the impeachment proceedings involved the Robotics Club, which I pointed to in committee and in front of College Council as a model of strong financial management. In that case, despite the Robotics Club’s exemplary documentation and my input, the Coalition of Academic Teams (CAT) ultimately chose to reduce their budget from the previous year. After my removal, the Program Coordinating Council (PCC) approved budget appeals consistent with my earlier recommendations. Whether a committee agreed or disagreed with my input was entirely up to them, and they proved to be plenty independent.
My focus was on transparency and clarity. Under my leadership, committees like CAT and PCC published their first comprehensive reports and adopted clear timelines—steps that made the process more consistent and easier for RSOs to navigate.
During my tenure, we created new ways for RSOs to offer feedback. RSOs were invited to meetings with committee members to better understand funding outcomes and, in some cases, suggested changes, such as a reexamination of asset management regulations, that were implemented almost immediately. The emphasis was always on improving structure and fairness, not on favoritism.
The question of transparency also came up in relation to document access. I never intentionally withheld or deleted public records. There was a period when a new Google Drive setting inadvertently restricted access further than I had intended, which I corrected as soon as I realized and which is a fault that is solely my own. No USG member ever requested access to a document to which they were entitled and did not receive it. In one case (Exhibit I of the USG Impeachment Exhibits), I withheld documents in accordance with USG conflict-of-interest rules. I also retained all documents normally made confidential. Otherwise, I made a habit of responding to requests promptly, often within minutes. That level of engagement was something people in USG came to expect from me and something I expected from myself.
Appointments to committees I led have also come under scrutiny. I lacked the power to appoint members, only having the capacity to recommend potential new members, who might then be nominated by elected USG members. It’s also common practice in USG to encourage peers to apply—especially for committees that are under-enrolled. At times, I extended deadlines to attract more applicants. Membership was open—typically, I accepted everyone who applied—and decisions were always made by College Council. All appointees who were later impeached for having been appointed due to connections with me were originally nominated in error by the then executive vice president or accepted due to lack of alternatives. My goal was always to seat people willing to do the work. My committees consistently met quorum, a rarity in USG.
Last year, USG’s university administration liaison, LaSabra Williams, reminded College Council that the “purpose of E&R [is] to keep [people] accountable including [College Council].” After my impeachment, R.E. Stern, the previous E&R chair, reached out to me to express his concern. The possibility of USG ignoring E&R rulings was something we had long feared.
But in the end, I was impeached largely because E&R unanimously, and without my vote, made a decision to rerun spring elections in the fall. I had already resigned as chair of E&R on May 5 after a member of USG, publicly and privately, threatened to have outside investigators examine my life if I didn’t resign. That level of pressure—and the nature of those threats—was not something I could reasonably endure for an extracurricular activity.
Some decisions I made were undoubtedly unpopular. But they were rooted in a sincere effort to strengthen an institution many saw as ineffective and to follow the rules in place. In 2021, a member of College Council plaintively asked in the Maroon, “What meaningful, ideological change has [USG] ever accomplished?” I took that question as a demonstration that something was wrong and worked to fix it. I’m obliged for the statement USG issued, though I wish it went further. I regret that my work ended the way it did, but I hope future students continue pushing for a USG that is fair, transparent, and built to serve all students—not just those in the room, but the broader student body it exists to serve.
