The Student Association can only thrive when the executive vice president balances the work of the student senate and the vision of the executive. This requires adaptability and the ability to command respect from other student leaders in an effort to reach a common goal. This page believes that Kyle Boyer exemplifies these traits and is the candidate most suited to succeed as EVP.
Boyer’s eloquence and confidence comand the respect that will serve him well managing the senate, often a body mired in bickering and legislative pandering. His term as assistant vice president of community affairs has exposed him to a variety of bureaucracies both on Foggy Bottom and in the greater D.C. area. Boyer’s dedication to one goal, while perhaps concerning to others, instead shows a focused determination not shown by any other candidate for this position.
This year’s trend of declining responsibilities and even attendance in the senate has inspired a crucial component to Boyer’s platform: holding senators accountable. Boyer emphasizes responsibilities and the role of perseverance. His dealings with Metro and attempting to reduce student fares, although not yet completed, reflect such responsibility in his own character.
Boyer’s experiences off campus, while valuable, should not offset his emphasis on campus-based programs and initiatives. If student concerns are campus-oriented, then his advocacy should be focused in that arena.
The role of the EVP extends further than the senate, as the situation requires the individual to adapt their own ideas and platforms into that of the SA president. Instead of coming in with a long and unrealistic laundry list of initiatives, Boyer has certain themes that have the potential to encompass the goals of the elected president. However one of Boyer’s central ideas, based on past experience and reaction from administrators, appears to be infeasible. The concept of having a student representative on the Board of Trustees has repeatedly been met with ardent opposition. Perhaps the new administration may be more open to a dialogue about this issue, but Boyer should not emphasize this as a central component of what he hopes to accomplish.
The two other candidates either had overly defined platforms or ideas that were entirely too vague. Edward O’Neil comes in with an ambitious platform full of admirable goals; however, the majority of them are fiscally irresponsible. His energy and goals for the SA are to be commended, but his lack of success in the senate undermines the viability of these initiatives. Many of his accomplishments were changes to legislative proceedure. It would be wise for the next SA administration to seriously consider incorporating elements of O’Neil’s platform by involving him in the administration.
Freshman Raven Burnett claims she is the candidate of change, but she is not adequately versed in the levels of bureaucracy required of an EVP. Having never attended a senate meeting, it would be ludicrous to expect veteran senators to respect her authority and for her to be an effective leader. Her inability to acknowledge the possibility of any potential weaknesses during her interview demonstrates an obstinate style that is not conducive to the type of leadership the SA needs. Perhaps Burnett would be better suited to run for a senate seat or other position providing leadership experience before delving into the deep-end of the SA.
If next year’s administration strives to build on the successes of this year, a competent, experienced and respected individual must be leading the senate and balancing the executive. In addition to his experiences both inside and outside of the SA, Kyle Boyer presents the optimal candidacy for EVP.