For legality’s sake, I’m going to start this with a disclaimer: The views contained within this article are mine and mine alone, and do not represent those of Webster Cook or his affiliates in any way unless otherwise specified.
On Thursday, August 28th, Webster Cook was formally impeached and removed from his position as Senator. This represents the culmination of many weeks of arduous legal battles and emotional turmoil for Webster and his family, and Webster is left with a permanent stain on his record after an impeachment hearing that was nonobjective and patently farcical.
Those unfamiliar with the situation should learn more here.
During the week between summer classes and Fall semester, the Speaker of the Senate, President Pro Tempore and Legislative, Judicial, & Rules Committee(LJR) chairman met privately with key witnesses to question them about the incident. These conversations were transcribed and presented during the Thursday hearing as evidence. The witnesses were not under oath at the time, and later analysis found that there were numerous discrepancies between the transcriptions and the conversations themselves.
According to the Impeachment Statutes here at UCF, the defendant is explicitly guaranteed the right to cross-examine witnesses. Webster was not granted this opportunity. He wasn’t even informed that the conversations were going to be used in his hearing until the night before, giving him no time to review the evidence or examine the witnesses himself.
The Impeachment Statutes also guarantee the defendant the right to refute the charges presented against him or her, but Webster was blatantly denied this as well. The hearing was scheduled to end at 11:00 PM, and at 10:53 a senator made a motion to table debate and immediately move into voting procedures. Robert’s Rules of Order gave this motion precedence. When Webster protested, he was flatly denied the opportunity to refute the charges, being curtly informed that “we don’t have time for that.”
It seemed as though all of the senators there had an agenda. Those who were not actively attempting to destroy him appeared more interested in getting an early start on Labor Day weekend.
Webster now stands stripped of his title, picking up the pieces after a minor incident was inflated and sensationalized onto the national stage. The impeachment proceedings reeked of both indifference to Webster’s human dignity and biased intent to sacrifice his future to placate a public hungry for his blood after the ridiculous spectacle surrounding his incident.
Regrettably, such incidences of questionable integrity within college student government associations are anything but rare. In high school, student political proceedings are at least superficially monitored by responsible adults whose job it is to ensure that the rules are followed and that things stay clean. Once college rolls around, the political corruption starts; those who aren’t just in it for graduate school application padding quickly find that they can deviously pursue their own ends with impunity. There are a dedicated few, though, a few who seek to challenge the norm and facilitate progress towards a greater good.
These few are quickly punished. Webster has long been a passionate, outspoken critic of giving public money to dogmatic organizations, both religiously affiliated and not.
Here’s a quick primer:
Each UCF student pays an “Activity and Services Fee,” to the tune of $12 per credit hour. This money then goes to student government for allocation.
Explicitly religious student groups received $75,000 of public money last year alone.
Few raise an eyebrow at this, if they even care to know about it. Many senators at UCF spend their meetings batting balls of paper around, doodling, whispering casual conversation to one another, and generally being ineffective, one senator (not Webster) tells me. During one financial allocation hearing, one awe-inspiringly brilliant senator expressed credulity at the legitimacy of allowing a group of 40 people to decide things for the entire student population.
Isn’t that the very nature of the Senate?
This general level of incompetence was certainly reflected in Webster’s impeachment hearing; “it was like they were making it up as they went along,” Webster later told me. Webster’s father was also there, powerlessly left to watch as the committee flagrantly disregarded the rules. The senators didn’t even officially debate the issue, instead just dutifully following the recommendation of the LJR committee.
Interestingly, the LJR committee is comprised of just seven people, four of whom are Catholics. It is up to each individual to recuse themselves from a potential conflict of interest. Not surprisingly, none did.
Webster had a thoughtfully written statement prepared to refute the charges, but as already mentioned, he was denied this right. The three who arranged the clandestine meeting with the witnesses did so by completely disregarding the direction of the Impeachment Statutes. Webster was not allowed to cross-examine these witnesses prior to the hearing. Such are but a few examples of the mockery of justice that was Webster’s hearing.
Now, Webster is doing everything in his power to fight for his rights and do what he can to clean up this situation.
Those wishing to help Webster out are more than welcome to contact our SGA Chief Justice Jordan Axelrod at 407-823-4721 or at sga_cjus@mail.ucf.edu
Editors Note: For the back story to Crackergate, please consult the following articles:
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Max Jackson
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
I will begin with a brief introduction as to who I am, and then continue with my exposition.
I am Daniel Winstead, and for the past month I have been working directly with both Webster Cook and Benjamin Collard, the two individuals involved in the “CrackerGate Scandal”. Through the entire process, I have been slowly unraveling the pieces of evidence utilised against him, and have drawn several conclusions that my colleague and friend, Max Jackson, would unfortunately not be privy to.
What I am going to say is unbiased by my involvement, but it is rather an observation of what has happened. I will present several statements, and I will allow all readers to make their own conclusion. I will present my own conclusion at the end for consideration. I apologise now for the length of this comment.
It became known, through some friends in the Student Government Association (SGA) that there were hearings occurring prior to the actual hearing. We looked through the Impeachment Statutes and found there is no provision explicitly stated, or implied, that allows for these meetings to take place. The times and locations were not published, and the reasoning for this was that there was no active business taking place; no vote, no reason to post.
At these meetings, three people were present as ”interviewers”, and the individual interviewed (with the exception of two cases) were also present, according to the transcripts. We know this is false, already, due to a written statement acquired by an individual documenting the case which states he was present at the interview of Ben Collard, and that he has video-evidence of such. Therefore, the transcripts are already fraudulent. Further adding to their fraudulent status is that these were transcribed incorrectly, with words omitted or changed, as proven by the audio recordings.
It is further odd that in two cases, the individual being interviewed was not present; it occurred over phone conference. In most of the interviews, they were asked speculative questions concerning Webster’s presence at the Mass; furthermore, religious beliefs were cited as truths.
Thus, these fraudulent pieces of evidence were submitted to the general Senate less than 24 hours prior to the hearing (with the exception of one, which was submitted less than one hour prior to the hearing). They were told to read through them and then to formulate questions based off of the documentation, and then they would be able to cross examine all of those who gave statements except for one, who was not present.
They still allowed for his testimony to be submitted as fact, and they said that they “would have to take it with a grain of salt”. Webster asked them about these hearings, and they said that the faculty member over them and the Attorney general (who has been against this matter from the beginning) stated that it was all right, and that it was based off of precedent. They also okayed for the testimony to be admissible without the witness present.
Those two things alone; an interview that is not provided for (they said they made up their own rules for it) and submitting testimony without right of cross-examination: both are grounds for mis-trial. Submitting fraudulent transcripts as evidence is grounds for acquittal.
They also refused testimony from Cook and Collard’s Student Conduct hearings, testimony from the same witnesses that shows a different story. In essence, their stories changed between the two, creating a contradiction. Unfortunately, the testimony from the Student Conduct hearings was considered “not germane” and was not allowed to be submitted, even though student rights violations were cited as possible crimes in the original affidavit.
The Senate based their vote on a concept of illegality; that Webster Cook broke a law and needed to be punished. However, there has been no “real court case” concerning this matter; they overstepped their boundaries and somewhat based his impeachment on a crime he has not been accused of.
Also, when asked where the Witnesses were procured from, the response was that they e-mailed Campus Catholic Ministries, who then provided them with a list. At no point was Webster Cook or Benjamin Collard approached and asked about their own witnesses.
Thus, let us review the facts. They created their own hearings, provided fraudulent transcripts, denied cross examination to Webster on at least seven counts, did not allow for him to defend himself and denounce the charges, did not allow for pertinent evidence to be submitted, did not provide for Webster to provide witnesses in his defense.
Webster proved that the individuals at CCM had touched him, and the witnesses attested to that. He also proved that none of them thought he was acting on behalf of SGA at the time. Yet, he was still found guilty of misrepresenting SGA.
My conclusion is simple: there are political motivations at hand which, unfortunately, made SGA come to this decision. When provided with all of the evidence against him, only one thing stands true: he did enter the Mass, and he did leave with the Eucharist. The witnesses all agree that they can not remember the exact events, except that they found it disturbing and confusing. When provided with evidence that the testimonies provided are fraudulent, and that there are individuals who are lying to them, not one word was mentioned. It was voted on with precision and calculation.
This matter will be appealed (if applicable), and it would not surprise me if certain happenings were brought into what I call “real people court”. Webster may have lost his position, but other individuals stand to lose more; their future as lawyers could be at stake if word of their fraudulence gets out. Either way, it is safe for me to say that this is not over yet.
Thanks Max for writing this article, and sorry I was unavailable for comment earlier. (Got to love being sick.) I will yield to any pertinent questions that anyone has. I thank you for reading.
-dw
How would you like to have this “comment” of yours be a guest post on Edger?
It is my recommendation that the email addresses of the appropriate UCF authority figures be provided so that this article can be sent to them.
I would be in favour of that.
A lot of these facts are well known to them, yet they will not step in because they dislike the amount of attention this entire affair gives the university. They are in a slight hedgehog’s dilemma if they do- they protect the concept of justice, but they look like a bad guy for doing it.
What officials would you be looking for in regards to their e-mail ? You can find them by just searching http://www.ucf.edu.
-dw
[...] Webster Cook Impeached Without Due Process | Edger Cracker-gate, abuse of power by Roman Catholic Church at UCF? [...]
[...] who was harassed and received death threats for taking a piece of bread out of a church, has been impeached from his position in the university senate. What’s galling is that the impeachment proceedings against him seems to have been corrupted [...]
This is a cool post about Eyebrow & Eyelash cosmetics.
Thanks for such an informative post.