Lawyers, Loopholes, and Lost Trust: The KSA's Governance Problem
The problems with the Kwantlen Student Association aren’t new — and they aren’t random. They’re baked into how the whole thing is set up. After countless conversations and a lot of digging, here’s what I think my fellow students need to know.
This is a long read, but if you make it to the end, you’ll understand exactly why things feel broken — and what we can do about it. Strap in!
2025 KSA Election Rule Changes
In late 2024, the KSA council approved a slate of new election regulations ahead of the 2025 general election. These changes have raised significant concerns about fairness and accessibility in the electoral process. Key rules included:
Media Blackout for Candidates: Candidates are banned from speaking to any news media about their campaigns once nominations open. The new rule states that candidates “will be disqualified if they publish news articles on their candidacy or platform, engage in interviews with news outlets … or request a news outlet to publish an article or endorsement”. This prohibition explicitly includes student media, preventing candidates from being covered by the campus newspaper. KSA’s Associate President Ishant Goyal justified the media ban as leveling the playing field, arguing that candidates with media connections could otherwise gain an “unfair advantage”. However, KSA staff—who often ought to be the resources advising the board—noted that “it is common practice for the media to report on council elections” at all other levels, making this ban highly unusual. The practical effect is that students must rely solely on the KSA’s own channels for candidate information.
In-Person Nomination Submission at Surrey Only: All nomination packages must be submitted in person at the KSA’s main office, which is located on KPU’s Surrey campus. This means candidates from other campuses (Richmond, Cloverdale, Langley, etc.) have to travel to Surrey to hand in their forms, adding a potential barrier. Furthermore, nomination signatures required on each form were tripled from 25 to 75 and must be original “wet ink” signatures. A KSA staff member pointed out that 75 nominators is “three times higher than any other student union in B.C.”, far exceeding the typical 10–25 signature requirements at similar institutions.
Hefty Complaint Filing Deposit: The KSA dramatically increased the fee to file an election complaint. In November 2024 the deposit was raised from $20 to $45, and then at the Dec. 20 meeting it jumped again to $75. KSA executives said the higher refundable deposit will help deter “mischievous complaints”. Even a relatively small fee can be a meaningful obstacle for students balancing studies with part-time work or no income at all.
In addition to the above, other rule tweaks included disallowing campaign materials in certain campus spaces (libraries, classrooms, and KPU online platforms) and requiring all candidate communications with the Chief Returning Officer (Gurinder Gaddu) to use non-KPU email addresses. While the KSA claims these changes promote fairness, student observers and press freedom advocates have criticized them as unnecessarily restrictive and opaque – effectively limiting candidates’ outreach and the transparency of the election process.
KSA Legal Spending and Budget Deficit
The KSA’s financial records reveal soaring legal expenses in the past year that contributed to a large budget shortfall. According to the KSA’s December 2024 draft budget, the student association ended the year with a deficit of approximately $674,000. A major driver was the explosion in legal and professional fees incurred by the KSA’s board: over $382,000 was spent on legal/professional fees in 2024, far exceeding the $230,000 budgeted. In other words, the KSA spent $152,000 more than planned on lawyers and consultants, pushing that line item into the red.
Why is Miller Thompson LLP, which replaced David Borins (Borins & Co) after his resignation due to the questionable hiring of current Executive Director Timothii Ragavan in 2023, being paid such exorbitant amounts?
Such legal spending was unprecedented – “within four years, from 2019 to 2022, the KSA spent a total of $249,646 in legal and professional fees,” whereas 2024 alone saw $382,051 spent, more than the previous four years combined. Even 2023’s legal costs were around $295,000, indicating a sharp upward trend.
This escalation of legal bills coincided with numerous controversial governance moves by the KSA (e.g. frequent consultation with lawyers on election rule changes and internal disputes). The result was a strain on the KSA’s finances: money paid to law firms like Miller Thomson LLP had to be covered by dipping into reserves or reallocating funds, contributing significantly to the overall budget deficit. Indeed, by November 2024 the legal expenditures had already doubled the year-to-date total, and another $142,000 was spent in the final months of the year.
Other overspending also contributed – for instance, event spending was $165,000 over budget – but the legal fees were a standout factor. Overruns in this category left less funding for student services and helped create the large deficit. In short, the KSA’s heavy reliance on legal counsel in 2024 came at a steep cost, playing a key role in dragging the organization’s finances into the negative.
Transparency Issues: In-Camera Meetings and Media Access
Multiple accounts from The Runner highlight a pattern of poor transparency and closed-door decision-making by the KSA. Concerns center on the KSA board’s overuse of in-camera sessions (private meetings excluding members and media), reluctance to share information, and strained interactions with student media.
Council Meetings Often Behind Closed Doors: The KSA board has repeatedly held discussions and made decisions in in-camera sessions that should arguably be public. For example, KSA’s own Financial Controller, Rolando Navarro, objected when a December 2024 budget discussion was conducted in-camera. In an email to the board he wrote that budget talks, “unless specifically touching on highly sensitive and confidential HR and legal matters, should be out in the open”. He emphasized that budgeting is a consultative process and stakeholders (students) must have the opportunity to give input. Despite this, the draft 2025 budget was not posted for student feedback as required, and council went ahead and approved it with minimal transparency.
The Runner noted it had requested a copy of the budget from KSA executives but “Goyal did not respond before publication.” This lack of openness around the budget – one of the KSA’s most important documents – exemplifies the broader transparency problem.
It’s worth mentioning now: the audited financial statements will be presented in the upcoming Annual General Meeting (AGM), scheduled on March 28, 2025 in the KPU Surrey Campus Conference Center (1205, Cedar Building). I will be there and I strongly urge every student to attend if you care about making your voice heard. The meeting agenda is short, but considering last years’ AGM, the chances that it’s not going to be eventful are slim.
Limited Access for Student Media: The KSA’s relationship with The Runner has been fraught, with officials often declining interviews or withholding information. In one notable instance, The Runner sought records underlying a sudden executive tuition benefit (a form of executive compensation – see next section) but “the KSA refused to provide us with documents per our requests”, even though an Autonomy Agreement between the KSA and the Press ensures the student paper rights to access KSA records (excluding confidential HR/legal matters and in-camera minutes).
Similarly, when The Runner asked questions about recent council honorarium increases in March 2025, “the KSA council did not answer The Runner’s questions… and did not hear back before publication”. KSA executives often opt to provide terse written statements or nothing at all, rather than engage openly with student journalists. The Canada Press Freedom Project reported that KSA executives did not respond to media requests for comment about controversial policies like the election media ban. These patterns suggest an unwillingness by the KSA to be accountable through the campus press.
Frequent and Questionable In-Camera Motions: The KSA board has used in-camera sessions not just for legitimately sensitive matters, but also for major decisions that affect the student body. A June 2024 council meeting provides an example: during that meeting, the board abruptly moved in-camera (with a unanimous vote) and, once in private, voted to fire the Chief Returning Officer (CRO) Sameer Ismail in charge of KSA elections. No reason for the CRO’s dismissal was recorded in the motion, and this critical decision was made away from student scrutiny. The Runner only learned of what happened via anonymous screenshots of the private meeting chat. When pressed afterward, the KSA president declined to comment on the firing, citing KSA regulations that directors must not disclose in-camera discussions. This incident – terminating the elections officer with no explanation – illustrates how the KSA has conducted consequential business out of view, then refused to explain itself publicly.
Hostile or Dismissive Attitude Toward Transparency Concerns: In the above CRO case, a staff member had asked why the council was going in-camera at all; the KSA chair responded that “a reason isn’t needed as the vote was unanimous”, only later inserting a vague “legal” justification into the minutes. In another instance, when the KSA voted to leave a national student organization (CASA) in a closed session, Jasmine Kaur Kochar absurdly claimed they did so because they “wanted a transparent discussion to happen” without outsiders present. Bewilderingly Orwellian statements coming from our representatives.
Of course, from a student’s perspective a decision made “behind closed doors — that is not transparent”. These kinds of justifications signal a fundamental misunderstanding of transparency: important matters affecting all members (like external advocacy memberships, elections, budget allocations, etc.) have routinely been decided in-camera, with students only learning of outcomes after the fact. The KSA’s heavy-handed use of confidentiality (often under the guise of “legal matters”) has bred mistrust among observers, including KPU’s administration (as we’ll see below).
Ultimately, the KSA’s governance has been marked by poor transparency. Council meetings that should be public are frequently taken into private sessions, major decisions are made with minimal disclosure, and the student association often stonewalls the very members and media trying to hold it accountable. This secretive culture has been a central point of criticism from KPU students and the independent student press.
In-Camera Decisions on Executive Pay and Policy Changes
Major governance decisions – like executive compensation increases and certain policy/bylaw amendments – have often been handled with minimal transparency, sometimes even behind closed doors under legal pretext. Two examples help confirm this pattern and reveal how KSA leaders publicly justify it:
Executive Pay Changes: In August 2022 (during the 2022–23 term), the KSA’s then-executives hastily convened a special council meeting to award themselves a new “tuition benefit” worth up to $10,000 per year each. This effectively covered their tuition using student funds. The motion to create this benefit was passed unanimously by the only four council members at the meeting – who happened to be the execs themselves. Notably, council suspended the normal requirement of two business days’ notice for this meeting, claiming all councillors had been informed, even though The Runner received less than 24 hours notice. The benefit was then enacted immediately (using a “notwithstanding” clause to bypass the usual effective date), and no other students had a say.
KSA President at the time, Armaan Dhillon, defended the move by stating it “took four months of research [with] our legal counsel [and] our whole team” to craft. However, when The Runner later requested the research and documentation behind this sudden $40,000 decision, “the KSA declined to provide” those records.
All things considered, this executive pay hike was pushed through in a rapid meeting with no external oversight, justified by citing extensive (but secret) legal advice, and even after the fact the KSA refused to show students the basis for the decision. This set a tone that controversial perks for officials could be created with minimal transparency.
Opaque Policy-Making and Legal Gatekeeping: In January 2024, the KSA council voted to end its membership in the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations (CASA) — a national student advocacy body — during an in-camera session. Despite the decision’s wide-reaching implications for federal student representation, it was made behind closed doors. As mentioned earlier, when asked why, then–VP External Jasmine Kaur Kochhar stated they wanted “a transparent discussion to happen,” an explanation that baffled observers, given that in-camera meetings exclude students and press entirely.
This paradox — using secrecy to claim transparency — is emblematic of how the KSA increasingly handles controversial decisions. The board often leans on legal advice to justify closed deliberations, even when issues concern routine student governance. For instance, in late 2024, two contentious election regulation amendments (one involving candidate eligibility based on academic year, the other requiring proof of disability status) were passed, paused amid backlash, and then quietly reinstated after further legal review — with little open discussion or consultation.
Council debates that should happen in public often get displaced to email chains or lawyer-vetted documents, leaving student representatives and stakeholders sidelined. One councillor’s question about whether an accessibility-related policy had been vetted by campus services was met with silence — a telling moment that underlines the lack of inclusive, transparent decision-making.
Overall, executive pay and other major governance changes have been made with minimal transparency – either via hurried special meetings or in-camera sessions – and KSA officials routinely cite “legal counsel” or procedural technicalities as justification. The use of legal advice essentially as a shield (e.g. “our lawyer approved this” or “we can’t discuss that outside of in-camera”) is unacceptable and this over-reliance on lawyers over open dialogue is a major governance concern in itself.
Why Most Students Don’t Get Involved
Historically, student engagement at KPU has been low — and it’s not hard to see why. As a commuter school and often a stepping stone to UBC or SFU, KPU hasn’t invested in building a strong campus identity or sense of belonging. There’s no real student culture — and with it, no natural awareness of the student association meant to represent us.
On top of that, the system is built to be discouraging. The complaints process (which I unpack later) is opaque, procedural, and exhausting. For most students — already juggling classes, work, and life — taking on the KSA feels like fighting bureaucracy with a spoon. The board knows this. The structure benefits from disengagement, and those in power have little incentive to fix what keeps them unopposed.
And then there’s the internal rot. Student politics at KPU has become a revolving door of short-termism. These are one-year positions, often held by first-time candidates with little-to-no experience. Many are motivated by status, a resume boost, or the appeal of a paid title — not by a genuine desire to serve or build long-term change.
They’re dropped into a system they barely understand, with little time or capacity to learn how to navigate its complexities and manage the expectations of stakeholders. What results is a culture of survival and self-preservation: easy wins over lasting reforms, alliances over accountability, and an ecosystem where cronyism can thrive quietly.
It’s not just that students don’t care — it’s that we’ve been given no reason to believe it matters. And we the students, the membership who is supposed to be providing meaningful oversight to our elected representatives, is similarly overwhelmed with navigating student life. Little assistance or guidance exists to encourage participation in student politics.
Oversight Under the BC Societies Act
The KSA is incorporated under the British Columbia Societies Act, which is the provincial law governing non-profit societies. Student associations like the KSA must follow the Societies Act just like any other non-profit, but this law’s provisions for oversight are relatively limited, relying mainly on internal self-governance. Key points about the Societies Act and its (lack of) external oversight include:
Basic Governance Framework: The Societies Act (in force since 2016, replacing an older Society Act) sets out fundamental requirements for how societies operate. For example, it mandates that a society keep certain records – “a register of members, register of directors, minutes of members’ and directors’ meetings, accounting records, and financial statements,” among other documents. Members should be able to inspect the records of the society. These requests by dissenting voices on the board in the past, by students, and by the press have regularly been ignored or denied.
Societies must file annual reports and financial statements to remain in good standing, and they are bound by the constitution and bylaws that their members have approved. In the case of student societies, the Act recognizes students as the members of the association with rights to attend general meetings, vote on bylaw changes, elect the board, and so on. These mechanisms are supposed to enable members (students) to hold their student society accountable from within.
Lack of Meaningful External Oversight: Importantly, the BC Societies Act does not establish any dedicated external regulator to proactively oversee student associations. Unlike public institutions, societies are not subject to freedom of information (FOI) laws or routine government audits. Oversight largely occurs if members themselves take action or if a court is asked to intervene. The provincial government’s stance has been that if a society’s rules or laws are being violated, it’s up to members to seek remedies (for instance, by suing the society or its directors in the courts).
In practice, this is a high bar – “if laws are violated, Victoria tells students to go to court — something they cannot afford to do.”
As a result, abuses or dysfunction can go unchecked for long periods. For example, the Societies Act requires societies to provide members access to certain records, but if the leadership refuses (as has been the case historically at the KSA), enforcement is difficult short of legal action.
The government agency that administers the Act (the BC Registry) mainly ensures filings are in order; it does not intervene in disputes or governance problems unless perhaps laws are egregiously broken. There is no government ministry or ombudsperson actively supervising how student fees are managed under the Act. The BC Ombudsperson complaint processes stresses that issues should be resolved with the organization first.
Calls for Reform: Observers have noted that regular non-profits and student unions have different oversight needs. Students are in a compulsory association (you must join and pay fees to attend the university), yet currently the Societies Act treats a student union like any charity or club.
Advocates have suggested several reforms to introduce meaningful oversight. One idea is to extend BC’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to cover student societies, which would force transparency of records. Indeed, students lobbied for this in the past; even David Eby (now BC’s Premier) expressed concern in 2015 about the lack of transparency and supported applying FOI laws to student associations. As of 2025, however, “nine years later, nothing has changed” on that front.
Another proposal in a recent commentary is for a new standalone “Student Societies Act” tailored to these entities. Such a law could impose stricter accountability – for example, by reinstating external oversight powers (via universities or government) and even making membership optional (as is the case in some countries).
Additionally, experts have called for measures like enabling audits by the Auditor General and capping salaries/expenses to prevent abuse. These suggestions underscore that under the current Societies Act, the only real checks on a student association are its own members and basic corporate law – which, as history shows, are sometimes insufficient to prevent mismanagement. Without legislative change, external oversight remains minimal.
Putting it all together, the BC Societies Act provides the legal framework for the KSA (and other student unions) but offers limited external accountability. It assumes that a society’s members will police their own organization. In the KSA’s case, problems have persisted despite the Act’s requirements, suggesting the need for stronger mechanisms (such as FOI coverage or a specialized student society law) to ensure transparency and accountability in student governance.
KPU’s Authority Over the KSA (Governance and Funding)
Kwantlen Polytechnic University’s administration has very limited authority over the KSA, due to the KSA’s legal status as an autonomous society. By law, the university cannot directly interfere in KSA governance, nor can it withhold the student fees that fund the KSA, except under extraordinary circumstances. Here are the key points:
Independence of the KSA: The KSA is an independent legal entity under the Societies Act, not a department of the university. This means KPU’s Board of Governors and officials have no direct control over KSA policies, elections, or internal operations. The relationship is more contractual: KPU collects KSA fees from students on the KSA’s behalf each term. Provincial law (the College and Institute Act or University Act, as applicable) compels the university to transfer those fees to the student association. In fact, since 1999 the law has explicitly required institutions to remit fees and removed the university’s discretion to withhold them. (Prior to 1999, a university board could refuse to forward fees if a student society was not in compliance with its bylaws or sound fiscal management, but that provision was stripped out of the law.)
As a result, KPU is legally prevented from unilaterally cutting off the KSA’s funding, even if there are serious governance concerns. The KSA would have to be formally de-certified by its members or by a court order for KPU to stop recognizing it. Absent such trigger, KPU “must” collect and pass on the fees. This lack of a financial check was noted as problematic, since it “opened the floodgates” for potential abuse by some student societies without fear of losing funding.
Limited Oversight and Past Interventions: KPU officials have acknowledged that the university has little oversight of the KSA’s affairs and that accountability must come from the students. In an email to all students on April 12, 2024, KPU explained the situation, stating that the university “has little oversight of the KSA, which is to be run and held accountable for its actions by KPU students”.
In the email students received, KPU went on to inform students of their rights and avenues under the Societies Act to address concerns, essentially encouraging students to get involved or seek change through the KSA’s own processes.
This was an unusual step – it is rare for a university to send a mass email signaling distrust in the student association’s leadership.
The fact that KPU did so “shows a lack of trust in the association” and underscores the severity of the governance issues plaguing the KSA. KPU also disclosed that it was investigating whether the KSA is meeting its members’ needs, looking into what (if anything) the university could do within legal bounds.
However, because of the KSA’s independence, there is no easy mechanism for KPU to “intervene” directly. University administrators cannot simply dissolve the KSA or appoint new student representatives – those powers lie with the KSA’s membership and the law. In the past, during major KSA scandals (such as a 2011 incident involving misuse of funds), KPU’s role was largely limited to facilitating solutions (e.g. recognizing the new leadership elected by students after they voted out the old one) rather than leading the charge. KPU did oppose granting the KSA more autonomy in the late 1990s (predicting the oversight gap we see now), but the province granted student societies greater independence regardless.
Can KPU Withhold Fees or Sanction the KSA? Under current law, no – not unless the KSA were found to be in violation of its legal obligations to the point that a court order or ministerial action directed a halt. The removal of the clause allowing fee withholding for poor governance means KPU is obligated to fund the KSA via student fees in trust. KPU’s president or Board cannot arbitrarily escrow the money, even if concerned. This was intended to protect student associations from university meddling, but it also means a rogue student government is hard to check. KPU’s recent actions have thus been limited to moral suasion and transparency measures: informing the student body of the issues, conducting an inquiry into the situation, and cooperating with any official investigations if they arise. For example, KPU has said publicly that it hopes students will exercise their rights by attending KSA meetings, pushing for accountability, or voting in elections and referenda. The university can also ensure the KSA’s space and operations on campus meet basic contractual agreements (for instance, if the KSA violated campus policies or laws on campus property, KPU could respond to that specific issue). But when it comes to KSA’s internal governance or finances, KPU must respect the society’s autonomy. Indeed, ultimately “anyone holding power within the KSA” needs to step up and fix these deep-seated issues, since the university cannot do it for them.
If you’ve made it this far — thank you. It means you care, and that matters. The truth is, KPU’s hands are tied. Legally, they can’t withhold funding from the KSA, no matter how dysfunctional things get. Their role is limited to encouragement, not enforcement. And unless us students step up or the province rewrites the rules, the system stays broken.
But here’s the thing: you can do something. Show up. Ask questions. Demand better. Discuss these issues with your classmates, your friends, your family, and professors. The more these things are discussed, the more likely change will come.
The KSA’s Annual General Meeting is on March 28th at the Surrey campus — and it’s your chance to be heard. I will be there. I hope you will be there too.
Student associations aren’t supposed to operate in the shadows. Let’s make sure ours doesn’t.
Have a comment? Leave it here.
Your words do carry weight. When used with intent, they can shift policies, spark dialogue, and protect what matters. 📩 Email KSA and KPU today.