Correction: The print version of this article stated that Ravi Cullop, ASUO Chief of Strategy, gave the Emerald the names of the letter’s authors and co-signers. This is not the case. Victoria Piñeiro, previously ASUO’s Senate Seat Nine representative of the Departments Finance Committee, gave the Emerald the names of the letter’s authors and co-signers.
On Feb. 10, former Associated Students of the University of Oregon Senator Victoria Piñeiro resigned from her position as Senate Seat Nine representative of the Departments Finance Committee, according to ASUO Speaker of the Legislature, Taliek Lopez-DuBoff.
The resignation came after a letter was sent to Lopez-DuBoff that expressed grievances against Piñeiro. The names of the author and co-signers were originally redacted and blacked out by Lopez-DuBoff as he “didn’t think it was really beneficial to share the names” and believed it would “take away from the overall message.”
The letter discussed concerns within the senate regarding Piñeiro’s behavior both on and off the Senate floor. It requested that Lopez-DuBoff “deal with this unacceptable behavior … in whatever manner is deemed appropriate.”
According to a document sent to the Daily Emerald by Piñeiro with the previously redacted names visible, the letter was authored and co signed by Senators Jamie Dillon, Rut Ramirez Pineda, Samaah Mohammed, Rain Baumann Gwirtz, Rachel Withers, Daniel Vo, Subbu Nagarajan, Joanne Wu, Eleanor Potter and Programs Finance Committee Executive Designee Justin Begley.
Ravi Cullop, ASUO Chief of Strategy, confirmed that Senator Dillon was an author of the letter, but did not confirm any other names.
What did the letter claim?
The letter claimed that Piñeiro “created a toxic work environment” within ASUO and specifically cited seven instances where senators, ASUO members or student organizations felt disrespected by her actions, five of which are discussed.
The two student organizations that were referenced in the letter were Women in Economics and Women in Business.
The letter noted Piñeiro’s alleged “hostile tone” and “unproductive questions” during the WIB surplus request presentation on Feb. 5 regarding a site visit to New York meant to serve as a development opportunity for WIB members.
According to Eunice Sohn, president of WIB, the organization came prepared with a detailed presentation that included “all the resources, all the details and all the statistics that kind of backed up our request.”
The presenters were met with questions from Piñeiro because it was the second year that WIB made a surplus request of more than $55,000 for a New York site visit trip, according to Sohn.
Piñeiro pushed back against funding WIB’s trip with student Incidental Fees at the meeting.
In an interview with the Emerald, Piñeiro said she believed that this was “not a sustainable way to be using surplus.”
On Feb. 10, Piñeiro made a comment during a Surplus Accessibility Committee meeting where she referred to WIB as the “business bitches” and allegedly used other profanity in a professional setting, according to the letter.
When asked about the “business bitches” comment, Piñeiro said that it was said “more just out of frustration” and that it “just came out.”
“I know they put a lot of work into the (fundraising) gala, but I was looking at the fiscal responsibility aspect,” Piñeiro said.
The letter also said that Piñeiro “harassed marginalized groups on the senate floor and during the SAC meeting” that occurred on Feb. 7, referring to the Women in Economics group.
On Feb. 5, Women in Economics brought its request to a senate meeting, where Piñeiro supposedly “mock(ed)” the Women in Economics organization for appearing “unprepared,” according to the letter.
According to Claire Rounds, co-director of Women in Economics, and Anna Hooper, Women in Economics’ director of finance, they both had met previously with two ASUO officers about their requests and were given the impression that “everything looked great” with their requests.
The request ended up being a tie-breaker vote in ASUO’s Senate, ending in the approval of the request at a lower amount according to Hooper.
Another incident cited in the letter mentioned an interaction that is presumed to be between Senator Jordan Ackemann and Piñeiro during Budget Bonanza, ASUO’s final budget hearing of the winter term according to Piñeiro.
Ackemann assured that “this disagreement was resolved as soon as I (Ackemann) sat down with Victoria (Piñeiro) after my presentation, and there was not any animosity between myself or Senator Piñeiro after the interaction.”
Ackemann said he “did not approve” of this interaction being used as “evidence against her (Piñeiro) in a letter I was not asked to sign and had no knowledge about.”
What was the aftermath of the letter?
Piñeiro was in class when she was notified about a meeting being held on Feb. 10 with Lopez-DuBoff and Tiera Garrety, ASUO’s deputy speaker of the legislature, but she was not sure of the contents of the meeting. At the meeting, Piñeiro was given the letter to read.
At the request of Piñeiro, the letter was read aloud by Senator Prissila Moreno during the public forum section of the Senate meeting on Feb. 12.
Piñeiro also requested to have the letter entered into the public record at this same meeting.
“I was just comfortable with having it aired out there because I don’t think that’s a clear perception of my work. So, that was kind of my thoughts there. If you’re gonna deliver this to me, I want everyone else to hear it at that point, too,” Piñeiro said.
According to Piñeiro, she was not made aware of or approached regarding the concerns mentioned in the letter before the meeting.
“(The concerns) were never indicated or anything like that to me. It was crazy,” Piñeiro said.
Piñeiro said the incidents cited in the letter were not an accurate representation of the work she has done and continues to do with student organizations overall.
“I also work at (the university), and my whole job there is working with (organizations). I reach out to organizations and put on cooking classes for them and do things like that. So, that just really surprised me, too,” Piñeiro said.
Senators, including Moreno and Eleanor Potter, did not agree with the way that the situation was handled and expressed “disappointment” in the way in which the grievances were presented to Piñeiro.
“To sit in that meeting (SAC) and hear those things and not say like, ‘Hey, let’s not talk about them (organizations) like that,’ and to just sit there and even laugh at the things that she was saying and then draft a letter is really disappointing,” Moreno said.
According to Senator Rachel Withers, Piñeiro’s situation could have been indicative of deeper issues within ASUO.
“It’s a very deeply rooted issue. It wasn’t just like she said this one thing that turned their backs. She kind of set a tone that it was okay or normalized to be kind of aggressive and rude towards others,” Withers said.
In terms of previous conflicts within ASUO, Withers said the previous “issues she was made aware of … happened away from the public eye.”
This situation was different because of Piñeiro’s request to read the letter aloud.
Withers said that she personally struggles “when people act the way that she (Piñeiro) does” because “it really makes people afraid to speak,” both in terms of student organizations and ASUO members.
“Hearing that someone would say those horrible things. That’s just such a terrible workplace environment to be in,” Withers said.
While the letter claimed that the actions of former Senator Piñeiro created toxicity in the work environment within ASUO, according to Cullop, Lopez-DuBoff and Withers, there have been internal conflicts within ASUO in the past.
The internal conflict consisted of “name-calling” and “talking about ASUO members behind their backs.”
“There’s drama within ASUO. It’s not entirely avoidable, but largely, the stuff that I’ve seen in ASUO has been work-related … And you know, while those things can sometimes evolve into disrespect, I’ve never seen something in ASUO that seems so arbitrarily personal,” Cullop said.
As observed by the Emerald at several senate meetings during the winter term, Lopez-DuBoff, prefaced each meeting by requesting that all senators be respectful and mindful of their tone when speaking on the senate floor.
Senators Elizabeth Sgro, Bella Esbeck, Rut Ramirez Pineda, Jamie Dillon and Rain Bauman declined to give a formal comment on the matter. The following senators did not respond to various requests for comment: Marisol Peters, Anthony Lopez, Samaah Mohammed, Daniel Vo, Eleanor Potter, Jess Fisher, Subbu Nagarajan, Joanne Wu, Franchesca Pagtalunan, Erin Luedemann, Andrew Ducharme, Emily Cole and Zoe Jenkins-Hiscox. Senator Dillon declined to comment on the situation.
Nina • Apr 2, 2025 at 5:40 pm
As a student at PSU currently taking a class on media ethics and political communication, we were looking at problematic article examples I came across this article as part of a discussion on student journalism and leadership accountability.
While this article raises important questions about accountability in student government, it’s ironic that the reporting itself seems to fall short of that same standard. The correction about who released the names — originally misattributed to Ravi Cullop instead of Victoria Piñeiro — is a significant factual error that undermines the piece’s credibility. If student leaders are expected to communicate clearly and responsibly, shouldn’t student journalists be held to the same bar?
The article relies heavily on quotes and the contents of a grievance letter but lacks deeper analysis or context. There’s little effort to explore whether the claims were investigated or what Piñeiro’s broader track record looks like. The framing leans toward the accusers without providing a balanced perspective or acknowledging the complexity of interpersonal dynamics in student government.
The tone also seems to focus more on drama than on meaningful reflection. Instead of digging into the systemic issues within ASUO — like how conflict is managed or how communication can break down — the piece amplifies tension without offering much insight.
One element that’s missing from the article is recognition that bringing concerns forward in a written, formal letter is actually a responsible and structured way to handle conflict. Written grievances, while difficult, allow for transparency, accountability, and the chance for a thoughtful response. In many ways, that approach prevents whisper networks or vague verbal complaints and gives both sides a clear record to work from. That’s a level of professionalism that deserves acknowledgment in the conversation.
Drex Heikes • Apr 2, 2025 at 3:18 pm
Student senators bravely condemn the behavior of a colleague but do not want their names released. They reach their “verdict” without hearing from the target. There is a term for this: a star chamber, a court England had to good sense to abolish in the 17th century because it met secretly and took actions that often were arbitrary. (But unlike here, the court did usually hear from the accused before ruling.) Legislative bodies work best when debate is vigorous and transparent. This behavior suggests Oregon is turning out future elected officials ill-prepared for the sharp elbows of governing.