Ishant Goyal: Conflict of Interest, Controversial Election, and a Troubled Legacy at KSA

As a Kwantlen Polytechnic University student observing our student government, I’ve grown increasingly alarmed by the controversies surrounding Ishant Goyal, the Associate President of the Kwantlen Student Association (KSA). From questions about the fairness of his recent election win, to whispers of a toxic work environment, to public rebukes from provincial student bodies – there is a lot to unpack. In this post, I’ll break down the key issues:

Connection to the CRO: Conflict of Interest Concerns

One of the first red flags was Ishant Goyal’s apparent connection to Gurinder Singh Gaddu, the newly appointed Chief Returning Officer (CRO) for the KSA 2025 elections. The CRO is meant to be an independent official overseeing the election, yet students have pointed out a potential conflict of interest. In fact, a quick online search of “Gurinder Gaddu” astonishingly brings up images of Ishant Goyal himself​, prompting many of us to wonder: just how close are these two?

During a Jan. 24 KSA Council meeting, Goyal and the executive team enthusiastically endorsed Gaddu’s appointment as CRO, with Ishant emphasizing confidence in Gaddu’s ability to “uphold the integrity of our election process”​. On paper, Gaddu was qualified – a former provincial election official​ – but the optics of Ishant championing his appointment have not gone unnoticed.

Why do images of Ishant appear when searching the CRO’s name?

Some students speculate there’s more to their relationship, fearing an insider advantage. While no official proof of collusion has surfaced, the mere perception has eroded trust. An independent CRO should have no perceived bias, yet here we are, worrying that our Associate President’s ally is refereeing our elections.

Examining the Chief Returning Officer’s Credentials

Adding another layer to these concerns is the recent appointment of Gurinder Gaddu as the Chief Returning Officer (CRO) to oversee KSA elections. The CRO is responsible for safeguarding the integrity of the election process – a role that demands impartiality, experience, and sound judgment. Yet, almost as soon as Gaddu’s appointment was announced publicly, his LinkedIn profile was abruptly set to private, removing what little information students could gather about the person now in charge of our student union’s elections. This sudden move to hide his professional history raised immediate red flags about transparency. What reason would a qualified, confident CRO have to conceal his credentials at the very moment those credentials should inspire student confidence?

Fortunately, a snapshot of Gurinder Gaddu’s professional profile remained accessible on an online resume site (Bold.pro), allowing students to scrutinize his background despite the LinkedIn lockdown​​. A full screenshot of this profile was captured for reference (see below), revealing the following work history and education:

Screenshot of Gurinder Gaddu’s Bold.pro profile. The profile lists his work history in sales and IT roles, and his education in computing fields.

Looking at these credentials, nowhere is there any indication of experience in managing elections, student governance, or policy neutrality – the very areas one would expect a CRO to be well-versed in. Gurinder’s background appears to be entirely in sales and IT support roles, which, while respectable in their own right, do not inherently prepare someone to impartially oversee a complex student election. There’s no mention of prior involvement with student councils, electoral commissions, or any governance framework that would suggest familiarity with the rules and neutrality required for a fair election process. His educational focus is in computing and cybersecurity, not in political science, public administration, or any field related to electoral oversight. This begs the question: on what basis was he deemed the “most suitable” candidate to safeguard our student democracy?

KSA officials have so far offered only minimal justification for Gaddu’s selection. During the Jan. 24 Council meeting when Gurinder Gaddu was appointed, it was noted that he had been “a ballot official during the provincial elections” and had experience in an election environment​. At face value, being a ballot official in a provincial vote likely means Gaddu volunteered or was employed in a polling station on election day – for example, checking voter IDs or counting ballots. That is clerical, one-day experience, not a leadership role, and certainly not equivalent to running an entire election as a CRO. Many students (myself included) find this explanation far from reassuring. If anything, touting such a minor credential only highlights the thinness of Gurinder’s qualifications for the critical job he’s been given.

Even more concerning is the context in which this appointment occurred. It’s important to note that Ishant Goyal – the very candidate benefiting from the murky results – is a sitting KSA executive who had a hand in shaping the election’s oversight. In fact, Goyal (as Associate President) was involved in Council discussions about election management; he even spoke about creating a new assistant CRO position​. This means a candidate in the election was partly involved in picking who would referee that election. Such overlap of roles smacks of a conflict of interest and makes the choice of an inexperienced CRO all the more questionable. If there was ever a time to appoint a fiercely independent, highly experienced CRO to bolster trust, it was this election. Instead, students got a CRO with virtually no track record in impartial governance – and worse, one who felt compelled to hide his LinkedIn profile as scrutiny began.

From a concerned student’s perspective, the pattern is alarming. We have an election result that inexplicably changed after voting, an insider candidate who seemingly benefited from those changes, and a hand-picked CRO with dubious qualifications operating out of the public eye. Transparency should be non-negotiable here – yet what we see is opacity. Why the secrecy around Gurinder Gaddu’s background? Why wasn’t a call put out for a CRO with proven experience? How are we to trust the integrity of an election overseen by someone whose résumé reads like a tech support specialist rather than a neutral arbiter of student democracy?

In the wake of these revelations, students are rightly demanding answers. Is this the best person to oversee a fair election process at a student union currently mired in controversy? The credibility of the KSA election process hangs in the balance, and it’s up to those in power to prove that our votes – and our trust – have not been misplaced. So far, they’re not doing a very convincing job.

Questionable KSA Election Results and Missing Explanations

Things looked even more dubious when the KSA 2025 General Election results came out. As a business student, I paid close attention to the Business Representative race (five seats available). The initial vote counts (certified by an external firm, Simply Voting) showed Ishant Goyal dead last out of eight candidates, with only **220 votes (8.9%).**​

To put that in context, other business candidates received far more – the top candidate had 405 votes, and even the 7th place candidate earned 253 votes, all comfortably ahead of Ishant​.

Under normal circumstances, the top five vote-getters should fill the five Business Rep seats. Yet when the official final results were released by the KSA, Ishant Goyal’s name magically appeared on the winners’ list – despite his low vote count.

The final list of elected Business Representatives included Ishant, while three candidates who initially ranked above him (with 253, 273, and 278 votes respectively) were nowhere to be seen. This implies that those higher-voted candidates were disqualified or removed after the voting concluded.

What happened? No one knows, because the CRO has yet to issue any public statement explaining these disqualifications. As students, we are left in the dark. Were the disqualified candidates in violation of some campaign rules? If so, what rules and why such severe consequences? The silence from the elections office is deafening. Transparency is essential for trust in our student democracy – and right now, we have anything but. Instead, we’re left with the uncomfortable fact that Ishant secured his council seat only after competitors were mysteriously knocked out of the running. This lack of clarity fuels speculation of foul play, especially given the aforementioned concerns about Ishant’s ties to the CRO.

Campaigning on the Student Dime?

Another issue that has raised eyebrows among students is the timing and nature of promotional banners that appeared across campus just before the election. Several high-quality vertical banners and poster boards were printed and installed featuring the current KSA executive team, including Ishant Goyal, with formal titles and professional headshots. While these displays were ostensibly created to “congratulate the Class of 2025” or to present the 2024-25 Council lineup, the optics are questionable at best.

These banners—funded by student fees—were highly visible in KPU’s common areas during the lead-up to voting. Their strategic placement and bold visuals functioned much like campaign materials, giving certain candidates significant exposure right before the general election, while other candidates had no access to similar platforms. It’s hard to ignore the fact that those featured most prominently were incumbents seeking re-election. The decision to greenlight this expense during an election period shows, at minimum, a concerning lack of neutrality—if not a deliberate attempt to leverage institutional resources for political gain.

Rumors of a Toxic Environment and Harassment

Beyond the election itself, rumors abound on campus about Ishant Goyal’s leadership style and its impact on the KSA’s work environment. Over the past year, both students and KSA staff have quietly described a toxic atmosphere within the association, alleging that Ishant and his allies have created a climate of intimidation and harassment. While these whispers are often shared in confidence (people are afraid of retaliation), they align with the patterns of misconduct reported in the media about our student council’s behavior.

Notably, the Alliance of BC Students (ABCS) – a provincial coalition of student unions – cited numerous allegations against the KSA Council in late 2024, including **“abusing their power as councillors, restricting the rights of KSA members, and attempting to suppress criticisms”**​. Such alleged behavior breeds fear and resentment. I’ve heard fellow students talk about feeling unsafe voicing concerns at KSA meetings, and some former staff have allegedly left due to harassment behind closed doors. While Ishant is not the only leader in the KSA, as Associate President he is at the center of this storm.

There was even a high-profile sexual harassment scandal involving the former KSA President (a close colleague of Ishant’s) at a national student conference last year. The then-president was permanently banned from the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations for that incident​ – yet the KSA under Ishant’s watch took no action and dismissed the allegations as “untrustworthy,” allowing that president to continue in office​ and as a obscenely-paid consultant who “trained” the incoming board.

As a student, I find this deeply troubling. It suggests a pattern of our leaders protecting each other and brushing aside complaints, rather than addressing toxic behavior. No wonder so many of us perceive the KSA as having a serious accountability problem.

Fallout with the Alliance of BC Students (ABCS)

Ishant Goyal’s contentious approach hasn’t just ruffled feathers at KPU – it’s caused an uproar at the provincial level too. Recall the ABCS, the provincial student coalition I mentioned. In May 2024, Ishant managed to get himself elected as the Chairperson of the ABCS (essentially the speaker/leader of that organization’s board). But by the fall, amid the growing misconduct allegations, the ABCS board lost faith in him. On October 9, 2024, the ABCS formally demanded Ishant Goyal’s resignation as their Chair, or else he’d be removed by special resolution. According to an ABCS statement, this unprecedented request was driven by the multitude of misconduct reports swirling around the KSA – reports that “shaken the trust” normally afforded to a member student union​. Ishant resigned from the ABCS immediately rather than be fired​.

But the damage was done. With KSA’s reputation in tatters, the ABCS board moved to place the KSA in “bad standing” – revoking our student association’s voting rights in the coalition and paving the way for possible expulsion​. In a hasty attempt to preempt that humiliation, the KSA (led by Ishant and company) suddenly withdrew from the ABCS altogether on Oct. 25, 2024. This withdrawal was presented by KSA executives as a voluntary choice to focus on “independence,” but in reality it came after the ABCS had already condemned KSA’s alleged misconduct and was about to oust us​. It’s a lot like quitting a job right before you know you’re about to be fired.

For students, this was a bewildering turn of events. One day, KPU had a seat at the table of a province-wide student advocacy group; the next day, our association was an outcast. Ishant’s role in this mess – from being personally called out by ABCS to leading the charge to pull KSA out – reflects incredibly poorly on our representation beyond campus. It was embarrassing to see our student union, under Ishant’s leadership, become the poster child for bad governance in B.C.’s student community.

Backlash from Other Student Associations (BCITSA Statement)

The KSA’s actions haven’t just been noticed; they’ve been publicly denounced by our peers. Perhaps most striking is the stance taken by the BCIT Student Association (BCITSA). In early 2025, the BCITSA issued a strongly worded public statement effectively blacklisting the KSA for its anti-student behavior. They pointed out that in recent months the KSA has tried to **“severely undermine its democratic nature by banning its own members from its Council meetings, curtailing access to its electoral process, and making it effectively impossible for its members to... safeguard against abuses by its Council”**​. In other words, another student association is accusing our KSA (under Ishant’s leadership) of acting like a “rogue” organization that mistreats its members.

In that policy statement, BCIT’s student leaders didn’t mince words. They denounced the KSA’s undemocratic bylaw changes, declared that (aside from necessary programs like the U-Pass transit pass) they “will not cooperate with the KSA on any initiatives,” and will bar KSA representatives from attending any BCITSA events or conferences​. The BCITSA even called on other provincial and national student bodies to suspend or expel the KSA, and urged any KSA Council members who supported these authoritarian measures to **resign**​. In a dramatic move, they also called upon government officials to refuse meetings with KSA leaders except to condemn their anti-democratic behavior​.

Such an admonishment from a fellow student association is almost unheard of. It underscores just how far the KSA – and Ishant Goyal as one of its top figures – have fallen in the eyes of our peers. When an organization like the BCITSA openly labels our student union’s actions as “inappropriate” and “in some cases corrupt”​, you know things are bad.

As a KPU student, it’s both infuriating and embarrassing to see our association isolated in this way. The KSA should be building partnerships to benefit students, not burning bridges and getting shunned.

Conclusion: Time for Accountability and Change

In summary, Ishant Goyal’s tenure and conduct raise serious questions about integrity and accountability within the Kwantlen Student Association. From a seemingly cozy relationship with the election overseer, to an election win achieved under dubious circumstances, to a slew of allegations about toxicity and harassment, to the KSA’s expulsion (in all but name) from provincial student circles – the pattern is one of power being misused, not responsibly managed.

As students, we deserve better. We deserve fair elections where the rules are clear and applied equally. We deserve student leaders who foster a positive, inclusive environment – not one rife with fear and intimidation. And we deserve a student association that is respected in the wider community, not one making headlines for all the wrong reasons.

It’s heartening to see that others are speaking out – from campus journalists at The Runner, to external bodies like the ABCS and BCITSA. Their citations and statements give weight to the concerns many of us have been voicing in whispers. Now, it’s up to us as KPU students to demand transparency from the KSA and hold our representatives accountable. Ishant Goyal may have secured a seat on Council, but it’s not too late to insist on answers: How will he address these conflict of interest worries? Why were higher-voted candidates disqualified without explanation? What is he doing to repair the KSA’s reputation and trust?

Until those questions are answered satisfactorily, the cloud of suspicion remains. This concerned student – and many others – will be watching closely, continuing to push for the democratic, accountable student association that we deserve.

Have a comment? Leave it here.

— A Concerned KPU Student

Your words do carry weight. When used with intent, they can shift policies, spark dialogue, and protect what matters. 📩 Email KSA and KPU today.