With students on summer break, an impeachment case filed against rising Weinberg junior Hunter Gracey still awaits a decision from the Associated Student Government’s Rules Committee, which serves as its judicial board. If a majority of the Rules Committee agrees, the Senate may be permitted to vote on the ruling.
Gracey, Northwestern College Republicans’ ASG senator and a member of the Rules Committee, will not contribute to deliberations on the verdict due to a conflict of interest. NUCR did not respond to requests for comment on the case.
The impeachment case has been ongoing since May 13, when former ResilientNU Senator Coby Potischman (Medill ‘25) filed the first articles of impeachment against Gracey.
On April 9, Gracey and Potischman, along with three other ASG members — rising Communication senior and Senator Ryan Lien, rising McCormick senior and Senator Ryan Beam, and rising McCormick senior and ASG Co-president James La Fayette Jr — had dinner together after a Senate meeting.
Potischman said during the meal, the conversation veered into a discussion about politics, and while stating his opinions, Gracey allegedly made several statements that others in attendance found concerning.
In the first articles of impeachment, Potischman alleged Gracey said “inflammatory … comments directed at minority groups” and said the statements went against the “ideals of the Senate” and were “at total odds with its ability to function equitably.”
Gracey said he did not say some of the alleged statements in the first impeachment articles, while others were misinterpreted.
“I won’t claim to remember every single thing I said, but I can say that I would never say anything in the way that I was accused of saying it,” Gracey said.
The other three people at the April 9 dinner filed amicus briefs to the Rules Committee, stating that Gracey made the alleged comments in the first impeachment articles or shared similar sentiments.
Potischman said he later realized Gracey, who is part of ASG’s judicial branch as a Rules Committee member, has an important and influential role in ASG. He said this information, combined with his concern over Gracey’s alleged comments, spurred his decision to file the first impeachment articles.
Potischman said he made this decision on May 7, about three weeks after the dinner, and spent some time drafting the articles before sending them to La Fayette Jr. and rising SESP sophomore and ASG Parliamentarian JJ Nabors-Moore on May 13.
Nabors-Moore notified Gracey of the impeachment articles the next day. Potischman said Gracey messaged him shortly after to ask if they could talk about the situation.
According to Potischman, Gracey reached out to other ASG members who had been at the dinner to request that they vouch for him and told them he would take legal action against Potischman for defamation.
According to emails obtained by The Daily, Potischman cited University policy on Discrimination, Harassment, and Sexual Misconduct from the Student Code of Conduct after filing the first articles of impeachment.
According to emails acquired by The Daily, Gracey then informed rising Weinberg senior and Speaker of the Senate Kaitlyn Salgado-Alvarez that section 2A of the University’s Policy on Discrimination, Harassment, and Sexual Misconduct prohibits student groups from independently investigating misconduct without involving the University’s Office of Civil Rights and Title IX Compliance. Salgado-Alvarez reached out to OCR to get clarification on the jurisdiction of the case.
When OCR reached out to Potischman, he said he did not want to move forward with any complaints against Gracey, according to emails obtained by The Daily. Those emails show that when OCR reviewed the reported conduct, it determined there was “insufficient information to suggest the conduct implicates OCR policy,” and OCR would move to close the case.
The Daily reached out to OCR for comment on the case. OCR declined to comment and said they would not confirm or deny the existence of any cases.
Potischman filed the second articles of impeachment on May 16, which alleged that Gracey had engaged in an “aggressive pressure campaign to quash duly-filed articles of impeachment concerning that discussion.”
In the second articles, Potischman alleged that Gracey was “impeding the function of the Senate” through his actions, thus warranting impeachment and removal from his position.
Gracey said he did not impede the function of the Senate or engage in a pressure campaign because the claims in the original articles of impeachment were under the jurisdiction of OCR, not ASG.
Gracey then launched an OCR non-retaliation case against Potischman because he claimed that the second articles of impeachment were retaliation against him for bringing the initial impeachment case to OCR. As of the time of publication the case is still ongoing.
Gracey said he believes the situation escalated primarily due to miscommunication at the beginning of the impeachment process.
“I don’t think there was anything malicious on the part of anyone,” Gracey said. “It’s just at the time when everything was filed, it felt like it was malicious, but now in hindsight it feels like it was just a miscommunication.”
Gracey said he thinks some of the confusion surrounding the case’s jurisdiction was because of the rarity of impeachment cases in ASG. He also said guidance surrounding impeachment cases in ASG’s Code of Conduct and Constitution was limited.
At its May 28 meeting, ASG passed a series of revisions to its Code of Conduct regarding OCR and ASG jurisdiction for impeachment cases involving civil rights disputes. The code now also explicitly prohibits derogatory language against members of the same groups that OCR recognizes.
The Rules Committee held a closed hearing for the second articles of impeachment on May 30, and both Potischman and Gracey had an opportunity to state their respective cases.
Based on initial information from the hearing, the Rules Committee originally said it would have a majority opinion within 30 days, then by June 27. However, the committee has voted to extend the period to 60 days, meaning it will release its decision by the end of July.
Clarification: A previous version of this story stated that the Rules Committee would release a decision within 30 days of the May 30 hearing. The Rules Committee extended that time period by 30 days, and the article has been updated to reflect this.
Email: [email protected]
Related Stories:
— ASG Senate allocates nearly $15,000 to new student groups
— ASG Senate swears in new co-presidents, passes three resolutions
— ASG Senate introduces new bills on entrepreneurship, sign language classes
