This year’s student executive branch debate was held by the University of Connecticut’s Undergraduate Student Government on Feb. 24. It was held in the Student Union Theater and featured candidates running for the positions of president, vice president, comptroller and chief diversity officer.
The night began at 6:30 p.m. with the chief diversity officer debate, which was followed by the debate for the comptroller and a combined debate for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates. The event lasted a little over three hours.
The debate was run by USG Chief Justice Andy Lanza and Elections Oversight Commissioner Ella Bennett.
Although the majority of the candidates as well as USG promoted the debate on their respective Instagram platforms, the room remained less than half full. By the time the presidential and vice-presidential debate began, there were an estimated 50 audience members in the theater.
Lanza opened the night by outlining rules for the debate. For both the chief diversity officer and comptroller debates, candidates would have the opportunity to present both an opening and closing argument of five minutes each. In between, the debate’s moderator would ask the candidates questions, and each candidate would have two minutes to respond. Candidates were reminded when their time was running short, and the order of which candidates responded was randomly selected and rotated throughout the debates.
The presidential and vice-presidential debate operated on very similar rules, although the candidates were given seven minutes for opening and closing arguments, as opposed to five.
Bennett moderated the chief diversity officer debate, which included candidates Phoenix Harper, Michaela Chigwedere and Angelo Montes-Diaz. Pages for all candidates can be found on the USG website.
Harper is a junior majoring in political science and business management, Chigwedere is a freshman majoring in political science and Montes-Diaz is a junior also majoring in political science. Harper is also the current acting chief diversity officer for USG.
The chief diversity officer debate lasted about an hour. Bennett asked the trio three questions related to the position and known issues before moving on to three student-submitted questions. Topics included accessibility, discrimination, advocacy and issues that students face on campus.
The event then transitioned to a brief recess, with pizza provided by USG. Bennett soon returned to the podium for the comptroller debate, which consisted of one candidate: William “Billy” Lipinski. Lipinski is a sophomore majoring in political science and is the current Inventory Director for USG within the Office of the Comptroller.
Despite being the only candidate, Lipinski’s debate followed the same rules as the chief diversity officer debate and included three student-submitted questions as well.
“Ultimately, my campaign, I’m running on transparency. I’m not a copy and paste of the current comptroller,” Lipinski said during his opening speech, referring to comptroller Sydney Whittaker as he stressed the importance of rotating the person who holds office. “I’m very excited to provide a fresh take on the office of the comptroller.”
Lipinski was asked questions related to the USG budget, Tier-II funding and the relationship between the senate and the comptroller. The debate also touched on the recent decision to grant extra funding to The Nutmeg to aid yearbook production, a decision that Lipinski supported.
After another break, Lanza took over control of the podium to act as the moderator for the final debate. The presidential and vice-presidential candidates ran on a joint ticket and answered debate questions together, and it was up to their discretion as to who would answer each question or if they would both answer it.
The platforms running were John Guthrie and Isabelle Cola, Nicholas Kafka and Smith Bernard, Ahmad N. Al Zouabi and Nina Lemash and Andy Zhang and Haritha Subramanian.
Guthrie and Cola are both juniors, Guthrie majoring in political science and history and Cola in political science with a minor in psychology. Guthrie is a Hilltop Apartments Residential Senator in USG. Throughout the debate, the pair focused heavily on transparency and communication between students and USG.
“The end goal of this campaign is to put all of you forward and look at all of you as equal,” Guthrie said during his closing speech.
Kafka and Bernard are also juniors and are both involved in USG; Kafka is a North Campus senator and Bernard is an academic senator for the Academic Center for Exploratory Students. Both are transfer students and often discussed making USG more accessible for students.
Kafka expressed a desire “to make a student government that works for students, not against them.”
Al Zouabi is a junior studying chemical engineering while his running-mate Lemash is a sophomore studying philosophy. Al Zouabi is the current Chief of Staff in the USG’s executive branch, and Lemash is the Deputy Speaker of the Senate for USG. The pair often promoted ideas relating to increasing the power of student voices.
“I’ve been committed to advocating for students, increasing funding and amplifying voices that often go unheard,” Al Zouabi said during his opening statement.
Zhang and Subramanian are juniors, Zhang majoring in economics and environmental sciences and Subramanian majoring in music, political science and women’s reproductive health. They shared ideas on budgeting and focused on sustainability and communication.
“We want to run a campaign that is built on advocacy, transparency and trust,” Zhang said after Subramanian began their opening statement.
In the same style as the previous debates, Lanza asked seven questions, four of which were submitted by students. The topics included conflict resolution, budgeting and Tier-II funding, working with administration and accessibility.
The debate was fairly civil throughout. Candidates often agreed on certain ideas but outlined different plans for implementing them. The only visible moment of conflict occurred during the last question, which was focused on a recently formed USG committee. The committee is focused on a referendum on UConn divestment in the military industrial complex.
During the debate, Guthrie labeled the referendum as biased, but did not see it as a USG-related issue. Bernard asked Lanza for an opportunity to rebuttal before stating that he and Kafka had heard student concerns about a lack of safety and inclusivity, and the committee was meant to increase student voice. This was the only case of a student successfully requesting a rebuttal of a statement made by another student.
Lanza ended the debate by thanking the audience and reminding students to vote in the upcoming USG elections.
Voting for USG begins on March 4 at noon and closes on March 6 at noon, according to Lanza. He also noted that the debate will be posted on the USG Instagram for students to watch, but did not specify when.
This post was updated on Feb. 26 to clarify that Bernard had the only successful rebuttal request. Another rebuttal request was made by Guthrie but was denied.
Slight inaccuracy here – “This was the only case of a student requesting a rebuttal of a statement made by another student.” I believe Guthrie requested a rebuttal to Andy Zhang’s answer to the referendum question, where he expressed that it did not make sense to label something as a “non USG issue” when 300+ students showed up to a committee room to debate it. Of course, his rebutall request was denied.
Whenever someone at USG runs on transparency, I always ask the question: “Do you plan to continue the annual spankings of USG representatives on Fairfield Way?”