The Board of Governors seeks advice from Senate on the merging of two faculties, but is it really a merger?
Laura Morales Padilla (she/her) // Writer & Data Visualization
Ryan Coomber (he/him) // Illustrator
Rachel Lu (she/her) // Costume type
“We are in unprecedented times,” stated Tracy Penny Light—interim VP Academic and Provost—during her report to Senate on October 7, referring to the challenging context for the proposed faculty merger at Capilano University. During the discussion of this announcement—which proposes to merge the Faculty of Global and Community Studies (FGCS) and the Faculty of Business and Professional Studies (FBPS)—multiple concerns surfaced, not so much directed to the merger itself, but rather, the way it was presented. As worded in the minutes, “Although there may be good reasons for the merger, there is a perception that the decision was made ‘behind closed doors.’”
The Board of Governors approved the motion to seek advice from Senate regarding this merger during their latest meeting on October 1, 2025, as required by the University Act and CapU’s policy B.105. Noticing that the Board’s proposal included a suggested timeline, January 26, concerns were raised by faculty and student senators that, while there are “a lot of unknowns” around this proposal—as stated in the October 7 minutes—there is also “a perception that the determination to move the proposal forward has already been made.”
When it comes to the unknowns, there is a distinction between information that is not yet available—because it depends on future decisions—and information that is simply not made available. An example of the first instance came when a faculty senator asked about the lack of financial evidence to support the merger proposal, such as estimated long-term savings versus short-term costs. Penny Light explained that this information is not available yet, as it depends on decisions that will be based on the advice from Senate and the transition working group. In terms of the information that led the Board of Governors to seek advice specifically on a merger rather than a broader restructure of faculties, however, it was not made available according to one of the senators. As stated in the minutes, “Concern was raised that the context of the proposal may be understood only by one section of the University.”
Framing the proposal as a merger significantly limits Senate’s role, given that the University Act only requires the board of governors to consult with Senate. If the proposal was to establish a new faculty—to align with schools and programs from the FGCS and the FBPS—then the board would need Senate approval. This observation came from a faculty member during the October 7 meeting, who was concerned about the new faculty potentially having to “demonstrate that the merger is not breaking policy.” According to the minutes, the administration maintained that the proposal is for a merger since minimal changes would be made “to schools/student programming.”
When it comes to faculty mergers, the University of British Columbia (UBC) set a precedent in 2018. The UBC Faculty of Education Vancouver and UBC Faculty of Education Okanagan merged “to create a new Okanagan School of Education.” This merger, as indicated in UBC’s Faculty of Education website, “will not change the number, size, requirements or tuition fees of the programs offered either in Vancouver or in the Okanagan,” and, “Each program will continue to operate in its current state.”
In contrast, the briefing note for the November 4 Senate meeting provided the enrolment background of the FGCS—the smallest of CapU’s five faculties—currently experiencing two program pauses due to low international enrolment. The briefing note indicates that “program rethinking and redesign will be essential” to make some of these programs sustainable again. Additionally, when a faculty senator from the School of Communication asked if schools from merging faculties would have a say on which faculty they would prefer to join, the administration indicated that “there will be an opportunity to consider the repositioning of units/schools once the merger takes place,” as indicated in the October 7 minutes.
UBC’s 2018 amalgamation of two faculties of almost the same name took place over a four-year period, while CapU’s merger of less similar faculties was given a suggested timeline of less than four months. To understand the sense of urgency behind this proposal, the university recently forecasted a deficit budget of approximately $25 million for the 2026-27 fiscal year. Still, during the November 4 Senate meeting, the administration opened the floor to questions regarding the next steps for the merger, but the discussion continued to circle back to how the process started. Considering the limited information available, a Faculty of Arts & Sciences senator argued that there needs to be an assessment of how policy in the University Act is being interpreted, especially since—as Penny Light stated—in “unprecedented times,” the way in which the restructuring of faculties is handled will set a precedent.
The bicameral governance system is organized to distribute the decision-making power between the Board of Governors and Senate, depending on whether decisions involve the business or academic sides respectively. The merging of two faculties involves both aspects, but as long as it’s framed as a merger, and not as the creation of a new faculty, the Board is required to seek advice but not necessarily to take it. The University Act prescribes consultation rather than approval, which makes senators more attentive to signs of whether the board is providing enough information to allow for thorough, informed advice for this decision. At the same time, the administration is remaining guarded in portraying a proper consultation process, as failing to do so has previously resulted in the university being taken to court. So far, senators have refrained from giving advice or to have anything in the minutes that could be argued as such, since the administration is obligated to wait until that advice is given to make the final decision. During the November 4 Senate meeting, faculty made it clear that the discussion during that session was not to be considered as official advice, but rather as a consultation.
Why did the Capilano Faculty Association take Capilano University to court in 2014?
According to the 2013-14 budget background provided on CapU’s website, “Our operating costs continue to face inflationary pressures, and the transition to a university has resulted in some increased costs, however, our operating grants have remained flat.” To balance the budget as required by the University Act, the administration suspended programs and courses without seeking advice from the Senate.
The BC Supreme Court found that CapU’s decision “to discontinue various courses and programs was made without complying with section 35.2(6) of the University Act,” and that the decision should have been made “after seeking advice on the matter from the Capilano Senate and the Capilano Senate has so advised the Capilano Board.” Furthermore, the court ordered the Capilano Board to seek advice from the Senate “on the development of an educational policy for the discontinuance of courses and programs before the university can discontinue any courses or programs.”
To investigate whether this susceptibility came about as a result of the merger, or if it has been a trend within CapU’s governance, the Courier reached out to senators from the last 5 years and collected information about their experience and perceptions anonymously through a survey. From the 44 people who received the survey, the Courier received 13 anonymous responses representing the views of six faculty members, five students, one staff member and one administrator.
Additionally, an open question was included at the end, requesting senators to interpret the following statistics put together by the Courier based on the minutes posted on CapU’s website: In the last 5 years, Senate has approved 165 motions (an average of 94 per cent were approved unanimously), and 4 have been defeated (an average of 2.3 per cent).
A faculty member offered the explanation that, “It is at the committee level where issues are asked to be re-worked and re-considered before being approved to send to Senate.” Another faculty member shared, “I believe that the sub-committees of Senate do most, if not all, of the leg-work,” corroborating the previous statement. “It’s not a surprise that we would in the vast majority accept their recommendations,” stated a third faculty member, noting that most of these recommendations come from their peers at the committees. A fourth member, however, disagreed and stated, “My sense is that major decisions at this university are made elsewhere”; from their view, “motions are approved unanimously simply because they are relatively insignificant.” A student shared this opinion: “Essentially a rubber stamp, decisions primarily made in committees or by admin.”
The Senate’s Overdue Homework*
*The Courier supports critical analysis but does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in this segment.
Capilano University’s policies are meant to “set out standards and expected behaviours, manage risk, promote efficiency and assist with compliance with applicable regulations,” according to the university’s website. However, the lack of substance and deficient interpretation of the University Act in policy B.105—Establishment and Discontinuance of Faculties—issued in 2015 and overdue for review since 2018, is the main cause for the ad hoc approach to the “merger” of the FBPS and FGCS.
Firstly, the word “merger” is not used once throughout the University Act, nor is it defined in policy B.105. Instead, the ambiguous addition of this instance is the flaw that makes it vulnerable to administrative overreach. The policy indicates that the merger of one or more faculties “may involve the discontinuance of some Faculties and the establishment of others” and leaves both instances open to interpretation, even though one scenario requires Senate to give advice only and the other requires its approval. In contrast, Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU)’s policy GV9 clarifies, “Proposals for the amalgamation of two or more Faculties, or the division of an existing Faculty into two or more Faculties, will be considered as the establishment of a new Faculty.”
Secondly, policy B.105 only includes a list of factors that the board “may base its decision on,” with no obligation to share what those considerations are or the evidence to support them. In contrast, KPU’s policy procedure sets out required information to present a preliminary proposal for either the establishment or discontinuance of a faculty so that Senate can assess if it “merits further consideration.” This preliminary proposal requires an academic and operational rationale, a preliminary plan to realign departments or programs in other faculties, an initial assessment of the impact on operating and capital budgets, “Recommendations, feedback and responses collected by the Proponent from key interested parties,” among other information. Some faculty members received “I don’t know” for an answer from the administration to multiple questions that would have been answered if CapU had a similar standard for preliminary proposals.
Moreover, considering the precedent set by the 2014 BC Supreme Court ruling, although CapU argued that “educational policy can be developed informally through practice and custom,” the court ordered that the Board “must seek the advice of the Capilano Senate […] on the development of an educational policy for the discontinuance of courses and programs before the university can discontinue any courses or programs.” Piggybacking on what the court said, instead of wasting more time trying to interpret a faulty policy and setting a precedent of uniformed improvisation, Senate should start with the long overdue review of policy B.105.
Lastly, to guide current and future decision making around the restructuring of faculties, it is imperative to create a procedure for this policy—as the one supporting KPU’s policy GV9—with input from the “transition working group” already put together by the administration. After all, the University Act doesn’t simply state that the Board is required to seek advice when it comes to establishing or discontinuing faculties, but rather on “the development of educational policy” for such matters. This policy is meant to be the foundation on which informed, structured and collaborative decision making can take place.