2008 Woodie Awards
Senator's ordeal ends with removal
Jillian Krotki
Issue date: 9/3/08 Section: News
|
A hearing was held in the Student Union to determine whether or not Cook would be impeached for the affidavits filed against him at a Catholic Campus Ministry's Mass on June 29.
Cook had three charges against him, consisting of malfeasance, misfeasance, and conflict of interest. The SGA Senate would need a two-thirds vote against Cook on one of these counts in order for him to be impeached. Cook was found guilty of misfeasance, which is defined as the wrongful performance of a normally lawful act.
Thomas Oreste, Chair of the Legislative Judicial and Rules Committee, began the hearing by encouraging all senators to come in with clean slates and make their decision based upon the facts presented.
"No one should have their minds made up. Student Conduct has no bearing on this hearing. This is not a religious ordeal," Oreste said.
The LJR Committee was allowed to question the witnesses about the events that took place on July 29. Afterwards, Cook would be given the opportunity to cross-examine any of the witnesses.
Anthony Furbush, former SGA presidential candidate and one of the individuals that filed an affidavit, was called to the stand and made clear to those in the hearing that Cook's behavior in the mass was far from acceptable.
"He made a mockery out of a student organization," Furbush said. "That is not what a senator does."
Furbush went on to discuss the conflict-of-interest charge made against Cook.
"If you make a statement that someone shouldn't be funded because of religion, I would consider that a conflict of interest."
Benjamin Collard, Cook's friend who had been with him at the Catholic Campus Ministry's Mass, was on the committee and also served as a witness. There were mixed opinions about Collard being able to participate as a member of the Senate during the hearing, but according to Oreste, Collard had every right to be there.
"As an elected student senator, Mr. Collard had every right to participate in the hearing," Oreste said. "Whether acting as a member of the LJR Committee or a senator-at-large, he had the right to ask questions, and the choice to vote was his alone."
Some people at the hearing felt that Collard worked harder to defend himself and Cook than to find the truth through the statements of the witnesses.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 4
Autumn
posted 9/04/08 @ 1:41 AM EST
Your institution is now known as a pathetically unintelligent hive of cowardice.
Cook was removed from the student senate for accepting a thing offered to him, and putting it in his pocket. (Continued…)
Fall
posted 9/04/08 @ 2:00 PM EST
Autumn, firstly, your choice of loaded words is not going to get your point across.
Secondly, I do agree that he should have been allowed to do what he wanted with the bread once it was given to him. (Continued…)
What The Heck
posted 9/04/08 @ 9:36 PM EST
He didn't eat the cracker? Bad, bad, boy. He should have eaten it. God will not be happy. Always eat the cracker. This is very important, and worth every second that we persecute him. (Continued…)
Post a Comment