USUSA officer placed on probation after six-hour trial

Editor’s note: Following the public conduct trial of Po’okela Yamakoshi-Sing, former USUSA Logan vice president, the decision was put in place by USUSA to use the word “hearing” instead of “trial” when referring to the presentations in front of a hearing board. For consistency in reporting, the word “trial” will be used in this article. This is not a reflection of USUSA’s language choice nor the nature of the event.

Athletics and Campus Recreation Executive Director Ben Burdette, who serves as HURD president and sits on the USUSA Executive Council, was placed on a 15-week probation on Nov. 12 after a six-hour trial. This was following a failure to uphold a memorandum of understanding, or MOU, initiated by athletic and campus recreation adviser Kennedy Thurgood on Oct. 6. The decision was reached by a hearing board consisting of students Will Hull, Makenzie Witherspoon, Aspen Batie and Maggie Lawton, as well as student chair Jack DePouw. 

Burdette’s trial took place in the TSC Senate Chambers at 3 p.m. The final decision was not announced by the hearing board until 8:55 p.m after a 90-minute deliberation. 

After a call to order, the complainant, USUSA President Brandon Sorensen, was called to present his evidence. He started by recognizing the work Burdette has done in his role with USUSA and the HURD.

“He’s brought energy and excitement to our campus and community and helped put on events students will remember for years to come,” Sorensen said. “Being a student leader is no easy task. You have to know your school, your position, as well as the demands and tasks that come from your position. I want to acknowledge that and thank him for his service to USUSA.”

Sorensen then explained the evidence he compiled and distributed to the hearing board, including emails, texts, Slack messages and other communication between Burdette and Thurgood, as well as Burdette and HURD Committee directors. The correspondence dated back to June, two months after Burdette was initiated into office. 

“Over the past several months, there’s been a consistent pattern of behavior that conflicts with what’s outlined in the [USUSA] Constitution, the Oath of Office and position description, despite multiple opportunities for growth and support, including a signed MOU. Those behaviors have continued,” Sorensen said. “This hearing isn’t about punishment. It’s about accountability by ensuring that USUSA continues to embody integrity and respect.”

According to Sorensen, the evidence showed a pattern of disrespect, unprofessionalism, misuse of university property and a lack of communication and accountability. These behaviors were noted by Thurgood, who then initiated the MOU, which Burdette talked through with Sorensen and signed.

Following this signing, HURD directors Kolton Freeman and Noa Aguayo, without knowing about the MOU, brought up concerns with Burdette’s leadership to Thurgood. This resulted in her noting 10 of the 14 points in the MOU were not upheld, leading her and Sorensen to call the trial, which was the stated consequence, alongside potential removal from office, in the MOU. 

Following his presentation of evidence, Sorensen called on Freeman and Aguayo to deliver their testimonies. Both directors were not planning on testifying against Burdette on his original trial date, which was Nov. 7. The trial was moved to the next available time for hearing board members to account for guidance submitted by an anonymous employee of Utah State University who recommended holding a trial right before a weekend, when the Counseling and Prevention Services office would be closed, wouldn’t allow participants in the trial to receive mental health help when they might want it. However, in the days between the original date and the trial, both directors heard from HURD Committee members Burdette had said he wanted to remove them from their jobs should he stay in the position. 

“It has been difficult to focus on my role or feel secure in my position knowing that retaliation may be directed at me or others simply for participating honestly in this process,” Freeman said. “In recent weeks, I’ve been approached by multiple committee members who have expressed that they felt pressured and forced by [Burdette] to write statements defending him for this hearing court. Several members reported that [Burdette] not only encouraged them to write in his favor but also told them what to say in their statements.”

According to Aguayo, since finding out about the trial, Burdette’s actions have improved. 

“I do believe this, but I don’t believe that should erase his actions that happened earlier this year,” Aguayo said. “When you are in a leadership role, you get to accept all the good that comes with the position, but you must take all the bad that comes with it.”

Sorensen read two anonymous statements from HURD Committee members requesting Burdette’s removal after his alleged anger at their decision to not testify for him at the trial. This concluded Sorensen’s remarks, and Burdette was called to present his evidence. 

Burdette addressed each of the claims Sorensen made, presenting further documentation and context for the instances of alleged disrespect, unprofessionalism and misuse of property, claiming most of Sorensen’s arguments were results of either miscommunication or tonal misinterpretation. 

“I do want to publicly apologize for any bad feelings that I may have caused. Being HURD president — it has been my dream, and it hurts to hear that I may not be performing to the best of my ability,” Burdette said. 

According to Burdette, he has changed his behavior since signing the MOU and was not informed of any breach of this contract before being told he would be going to trial. He provided evidence that behaviors Thurgood and the HURD directors deemed unprofessional were accepted before his time as executive director, moving him to think they were appropriate. Further evidence documented the instances Sorensen claimed were disrespectful were instead jokes or sarcasm that he believed was also acceptable given the reactions of his peers and adviser. 

Although he did make a comment about replacing his directors, Burdette said this was an emotional outburst after hearing he would need to attend a trial. He claimed to retract this comment later that same day and reiterated during the trial that he would not want his directors to be replaced, regardless of whether he stayed in office.

“They would remain as directors. I think they’ve earned their spots,” Burdette said.

Following his presentation, Burdette called on six character witnesses and read the statements of four student-athletes, one HURD Committee member and USU Eastern Vice President Brooklyn Mackay. 

“[Burdette’s] professionalism and his ability to form and maintain positive relationships enables him to create buy-in from athletic teams, the student body and the local community,” said Natalie Baker, HURD Committee member. “Removing him from office would not only be unwarranted but would disrupt the progress of the HURD and HURD Committee and be detrimental to our ability to create and retain student engagement for the remainder of the year.”

According to Taylor Rath, a member of the USU Soccer team, Burdette is an important part of gameday experiences for student-athletes. 

“I have seen how [Burdette] consistently shows up for all student-athletes — not just in words but in promotion,” Rath wrote in her testimony read by Burdette. “He represents Utah State with professionalism and passion, treating every athlete and fan with respect and kindness. His leadership doesn’t divide — it brings us together. His impact on our team and on Utah State as a whole is undeniable, and I fully stand behind him as both a leader and as a person.”

Following Burdette’s presentation, the hearing board called a two-minute recess and resumed with a five-minute rebuttal from both Sorensen and Burdette. The board then posed questions for Sorensen, Burdette, Thurgood, Freeman and Aguayo to clarify information in the evidence. They then left the room for deliberation. 

Upon reaching a decision, the board returned to announce Burdette will be put on probation for 15 weeks. They recommended this probation consist of weekly meetings with Linda Zimmerman, executive director of USU Student Involvement, and participating in any leadership training Zimmerman saw fit. 

The board outlined the nine parts of the MOU they felt Burdette needed to improve and recommended the probation be centered around those items.

“If Director Burdette fails to comply with two or more of the nine behaviors given in a single week, then he will be referred to the hearing board again with a recommendation of removal from office,” DePouw said. “Furthermore, if he fails to comply with any of the behaviors outlined in the MOU for two weeks in a row, this will result in an immediate hearing as well.”

Zimmerman was given the right to decide if Burdette violates any behavior outlined in the MOU, although anyone can present a complaint to her for consideration. Thurgood, while advised not to be involved in the meetings or other conditions of the probation, is allowed to present complaints, which will be treated the same as any other.