CSU directors have given up on their own board

Started with a slate and ended in corruption—Student senator speaks up against selective accountability within the Capilano Students’ Union

Laura Morales (she/her) // Video Production Manager

The Capilano Students’ Union (CSU) Board of Directors is made up of students who are democratically elected to represent them. From 2021 to 2024, the number of candidates running in the election more than doubled, increasing from 22 to 59. Additionally, the number of complaints exploded, from 0 to 57. The competition to become part of the CSU Board has grown drastically, but the directors’ performance after being elected suggests that this interest has less to do with serving the student body and more to do with an easy way to make money.

The roles with the most responsibilities—and consequently, the highest pay—are the president and the four vice presidents, collectively known as the executive directors. They receive a yearly pay of over $24,750 for performing their duties, which revolve around two key tasks:

1. Attend the Board of Directors (BoD) meetings, which are held twice a month. They can last as little as half an hour, with a maximum duration of three hours—provided there is a quorum to hold the meeting. During these meetings, directors make decisions on behalf of CapU students, who are CSU members through their payment of student society fees each term. Decisions focus on how to best allocate the CSU’s annual budget of approximately $4.5 million to benefit the student body.
2. Submit a monthly report stating whether they’ve completed the required 80 hours of work, along with an explanation if they haven’t.

The CSU staff monitors board members’ performance by tracking attendance at Board of Directors (BoD) meetings and timely report submissions. A member can be removed for three consecutive unexcused absences, six non-consecutive unexcused absences, or failing to submit three reports within 30 days of receiving a notice. However, removal requires a motion and a two-thirds vote with at least two weeks’ notice. This means the Board can choose not to remove a member even if they have nine unexcused absences, as was the case with Anmol Sharma, the Mature & Parent Students Liaison, who retained their position after a vote on the January 24 BoD meeting. Importantly, this is for unexcused absences, meaning that if a board member provides an excuse (sends a two-line email) for missing a meeting and the board accepts it, there are no consequences.; “There is no policy on how many excused absences we mark. We work on a judgment basis,” explained CSU president Angad Brar.

Currently, there are recurring challenges due to a lack of solid guidelines for report quality. As long as the board member submits a document titled “Report” on the date it’s due, it can simply state something like, “November and December have been quiet months, so there’s not much to report. I had my final exams, so I couldn’t participate much,” as seen in Dilkaran Singh’s report, VP Equity & Sustainability, and still receive full pay. The executive director explained, “Aany reduction in pay connected to hours worked would need to be an action/decision taken by the board of directors.” Brar acknowledged that additional measures are needed to ensure quality, since the current policy only focuses on having reports handed in on time, and assured that “reports will be good next year.”

As stated in the Board Ethics and Conduct policy, “The board may, at its discretion, impose sanctions” for violations of the conduct standards set around the principles of good governance, commitment, respect, responsibility, and accountability, among others. Still, no sanctions are placed automatically, and the reality that was brought to light in the meeting held on January 10, 2025, is that some board members feel powerless when it comes to keeping their board accountable. During the meeting, Senator Priya McMurtrie was indignant to learn that the two other senators, Sarang Deep Singh and Amanjot Singh, had not only failed to submit their reports for the past three months but had also plagiarized Priya’s reports almost word for word when they finally submitted them. McMurtrie told the board, “I put so much work into the Senate” and was upset to “have these two student senators just take what I’ve done.”These reports included updates about their work in SAPPRC—a committee where Priya is the sole student representative—as well as two one-on-one meetings she had. The reports were removed from the agenda, but no sanction was put forward.

During the question period, the Courier asked what other actions could be taken to prevent this from happening again. Sophia Kara, the Board of Governors Representative, responded, “There are sanctions that can be placed on board members, but as we’ve seen in the past, they don’t typically happen because of the lack of accountability that has been precedent on this board.” She explained that even when a motion to sanction a director is proposed, it goes to a vote, and whether accountability takes place depends on who is present at the meeting. So, what is the rationale behind this vote-dependent accountability system? And why might selective accountability be considered problematic?

Leaving decisions like sanctions to the board’s discretion allows for flexibility and case-by-case consideration, ensuring context-sensitive outcomes through deliberation and voting. In theory, this system balances accountability with informed decision-making. In practice, however, it allows executive members to earn over $24,750 annually while doing minimal work. “I’m fighting against a wall of corruption that is the executives, and that is a lot of this same group of people who are all very clearly friends and will vote for each other no matter what,” stated Senator McMurtrie.

According to the CSU Election Policy, slate-like behaviour is prohibited, meaning “two or more candidates who run together for elected offices for mutual advantage.” This rule is meant to reduce the risk of block voting and ensure that board members represent diverse perspectives. The Courier asked President Brar how he manages to separate friendship from CSU work; he shared, “It was hard for me in the first few months, to be honest. But now, as I’m learning with time, I would say I’m in a better position.”

Moreover, the board made it mandatory for candidates to submit a biography statement and attend candidate forums for this year’s elections. President Brar explained that these changes aim to help voters get to know candidates better.  Four of 18 current board members attended the forums, and five failed to even submit a biography statement (see appendix), which is displayed on the ballot for students to review before voting. When asked how those candidates were elected without sharing their plans for their term—especially when running against candidates who did—Brar replied, “I’m not sure how they got the votes.”

The current president of the CSU Board was temporarily disqualified from elections last year due to multiple complaints filed against him—two for aggressively campaigning and two for participating in a slate. In the decision to disqualify Brar, the elections administrator stated, “I find on the balance of probabilities that Angad Brar Gill has campaigned as part of a slate and that he encouraged voters to vote for the slate.” Shortly after, the arbitration panel overturned this decision as they deemed the evidence insufficient. Then, Gill went from being prohibited from participating in an election campaign for the next two cycles to being the president of the CSU.

Evidence may have been insufficient by the end of the last campaigning period; however, if a slate is successful, then further evidence is yet to come, as their voting power is inevitably reflected on the board’s policy priorities and track for accountability. To date, they have repealed the “Board Accountability Policy” put in place by the previous board, amended the Board Meetings Policy to cancel unexcused absences during the summer of 2024, held a Special General Meeting to remove the minimum 2.00 cumulative GPA requirement to run in the upcoming election, and allowed board members full pay without fulfilling the expected 80 hours, among other decisions that show why campaigning as a slate is prohibited.

Appendix: