Nicholas Kafka and Smith Bernard
Nicholas Kafka and Smith Bernard are both transfer students at the University of Connecticut, largely on their unique perspectives coming from student government at community colleges.
“One of the biggest things that motivate us to run is that Smith and I both come from community college. When we both got into power, we had this plan to revolutionize our campus to have community in our community college. We both were successfully able to do so,” said Kafka, a junior studying political science.
According to Kafka, he sees a barrier between the student body and the elected officials who represent them.
“When we got elected to the student government here, we noticed that USG [Undergraduate Student Government] has been lacking in situations like that. They always say day after day that they need to work on the barrier between students and the USG, but it seems they fail to do so at every step of the way,” he added. Kafka is currently a residential senator for North Campus.
The candidates said that their ticket is unique from others on the ballot this year because they have made plans to implement the promises made on the campaign trail prior to being elected to office.
“We have laid out our policy and how we’re going to do it. Because we know that if we were to win, we don’t want to start on day zero figuring out how we’re going to implement the stuff we want to do,” said Bernard, a junior studying economics with a minor in accounting and political science. “We want to figure that out before we announce it and have a plan set in stone, so students know how we’re going to do it and what we want to do before we even get in if we were to get elected.” Bernard is also a senator in USG.
The candidates articulated concerns about the referendum brought before USG calling for UConn to divest from the military industrial complex, specifically regarding the referendum violating a specific bylaw in USG’s constitution.
“As Smith and I did mention in the debate we believe that the referendum violated Bylaw 5, Section A of the USG bylaws, which directly says the questions of a referendum should be written clearly and concisely to make the questions as neutral as possible,” said Kafka. “So that is why at the senate meeting, Smith was the one to initiate a committee to actually have all these different student voices involved to have a referendum that hopefully all sides can agree on. We were concerned because we believed that [if] it did violate the bylaws that it would be harmful to students on campus because if the questions are directly biased towards one side than another, that’s not a correct referendum question.”
Kafka continued, criticizing USG executives for not recognizing the error sooner.
“I’ll go a step further and say that the executive branch for the USG should have noticed it was biased and then have the judicial branch check to see if it indeed does violate it [the bylaws] in any way but they have not,” he said.
That is not to say that the candidates were not in support of the referendum per se.
“During the internal affairs committee there was a movement to table the referendum. We do not believe in tabling this, this issue definitely has to come up to the students and that is why we held this committee, to keep the conversation going,” Bernard said. “If the referendum was passed in the original way it was written, it potentially could have been struck down by the judiciary and then there would be no referendum. We want to make sure when the referendum goes out there for all 20,000 students to vote on that we have a good understanding of what students want on campus.”
Ahmad N. Al Zouabi and Nina Lemash
Ahmad N. Al Zouabi and Nina Lemash have both been involved in USG for most of their college careers.
“I’ve been a part of USG for the past three years, coming up on my fourth, and I just wanted to continue that initiative in a bigger, much more impactive role as president,” said Al Zouabi, a junior studying chemical engineering.
Lemash had a similar response but elaborated more on how the pair would have such an impact.
“I also started [at USG] in the very beginning of my college career. Quoting our last vice president, Peter Spinelli[…]he was running on this idea of momentum. And I feel like Ahmad and I are in a really good spot right now where we have enough institutional knowledge and the two of us could make a really good team with that knowledge and momentum that we already have to peruse the initiatives that we’re starting now and for next year,” she said.
The two argued that the relationships they have fostered with UConn administration and within USG itself set them apart from the other tickets on the ballot.
“We’ve created a lot of relationships with admin, which take a lot of time to create. Having solidified that relationship right now gives us the ability to hit the ground running. We’re going to get on initiatives much faster than other candidates would be able to,” said Al Zouabi.
The candidates communicated some pride regarding how involved the student body has become regarding the referendum.
“I think that the purpose of USG, a representative body, is to give students a voice. And I think that this conversation should be a lot less about the content of the referendum and more about the fact that we gave over 250-300 students an opportunity to come and speak and address the public,” said Lemash. “I said this during the debate too, but I am incredibly proud that this organization is able to provide that voice. Similarly with the committee, some people expressed their voice and expressed that they thought the referendum wasn’t written properly so the senators who represent the student body made a decision to kind of rewrite it and I think this committee can do really good things.”