The key policy grey areas impacting Senate’s role in high-stakes decisions
Laura Morales Padilla (she/her) // Co-EIC & Ilustrator
The recently approved mitigation plan to address the forecasted deficit budget for the 2026-27 fiscal year has brought many difficult decisions to Senate for legally required advice. From the discontinuation of multiple programs to the merger of two faculties, senators are dusting off policies—one over six years overdue for review—to define their role in these high-stakes decisions. So, what are the key grey areas affecting decisions that will shape the university’s academic future? And, what strategies are underway from senators and the administration to address them?
The Board of Governors is in charge of managing the university’s revenue, but some decisions—following the University Act—require the involvement of Senate. For instance, when it comes to permanently deleting a course or program, the relevant policy B.104 states that the Board may approve these discontinuances “after seeking the advice of the Senate.”
However, ‘permanently deleting’ must not be confused with ‘indefinitely suspending,’ a grey area that until recently allowed the administration to stop admitting students to programs without consultation, and then present the depopulated programs for discontinuation. This “long-game work around,” as explained by the Capilano Students’ Union (CSU) executive director during the January University Affairs meeting, makes it really hard for senators to object to the discontinuance of a program: “How can you rationally object to deleting a program that has no students in it?”
The executive director clarified that some programs are genuinely underperforming, or not contributing significantly to student success or graduation pathways, but in their view, consultations should still be taking place for program suspensions. “From a CSU perspective, a suspended program is a discontinued program,” he said.
In item 2.1 of the January Senate agenda, the Interim Vice President, Academic and Provost stated that, “the suspension of admission for programs has not been subject to Policy B.104, which deals specifically with the discontinuance of programs and courses.” However, a recent court decision found that the administration at Thompson Rivers University, as reported by the Castanet, overstepped its authority by suspending one of its programs without consultation. “To ensure potential compliance with the standards set by the courts,” the Interim VP indicated, the Board is seeking advice from Senate on the suspension of 11 programs.
In an email exchange with the Courier, the administration confirmed that policy B.104 and its supporting procedure are under review, and that program suspensions “will be considered for inclusion in the updated policy and procedure.” As for the implementation timeline, the administration indicated that, “The board governance and policy committee agreed (in April 2025) to a new timeline for these reviews with a fall 2026 deadline in order to align with the planned preparatory work currently being completed in support of the eventual implementation of a new curriculum management system.”
If the reviewed version of B.104 clarifies that consultation is also needed for program suspensions, it would prevent program pauses from being used to avoid the consultation required for discontinuances. As for now though, from the 30 programs that are currently being proposed for discontinuance—pending Senate advice—20 were previously “paused,” as indicated in January Senate meeting agenda, without consulting with Senate.
On the other hand, as previously reported by the Courier, the proposal to merge the Faculty of Global and Community Studies and the Faculty of Business and Professional Studies brought to light another problematic grey area in policy B.105: Establishment and Discontinuance of Faculties. By not defining what a “merger” is, the policy made it unclear whether the Board required Senate’s advice or approval; the main difference being that the Board is not required to follow Senate’s advice, but requiring approval gives Senate veto power. When the Board decided that seeking advice was the appropriate path, it pushed senators to formalize a procedure to provide it, considering how significant this decision is for the university. To unpack Senate’s approach to this issue, and how it will set precedent, the Courier reached out to Corey Muench, chair of the Senate Policy & Governance committee (SPGC).
As Muench clarified, the SPGC works primarily on academic policies. Occasionally, it reviews other policies when required by the University Act or when the Board chooses to seek Senate’s advice, as happened when developing the policy to discontinue programs and courses. This committee of mostly volunteers meets twice a month, which is more frequent than any other subcommittee. “We have typically been getting through 10-13 policies per academic year,” indicated the senator, being very appreciative of the “thoughtful and large amount of work that the committee members put in.”
When it comes to Board of Governors policies, such as B.104 or B.105—Establishment and Discontinuance of Faculties—Muench indicated that the SPGC could make recommendations to improve them, but “it is ultimately up to the Board to decide how it formulates its own policies.” In other words, the Board could request the committee’s advice or the Senate could vote on making a recommendation, but it would be up to the Board to consider this suggestion. “It would be my hope that the Board would carefully consider any good faith policy advice that came from Senate or for lesser issues, from SPGC,” he added.
Another issue that emerged with policy B.105 is that it doesn’t have a procedure to guide its implementation. Thus, there is no comprehensive list of information required to present a proposal to Senate for advice, as other similar policies do, such as policy GV9 from Kwantlen Polytechnic University. Still, senators found the way to gather this information themselves through the creation of an Ad Hoc committee. The motion to create this committee was moved and seconded by student senators during Senate’s December meeting, given that the current working group set up by the administration for consultations on the merger had no student representation. “Hopefully student senators at least will be invited to take part in that,” stated one of the student senators during the CSU Board of Directors meeting on January 18.
During the holiday break, members of the SPGC managed to put together the terms of reference for the Ad Hoc committee in time for the very next meeting on January 13. During the last CSU University Affairs committee meeting, a student senator emphasized that this was no small task, given that other members at the senate meeting expressed concerns that the process to approve the ad hoc committee would be too slow. “Corey proved them wrong, boom!” they said.
As explained by Muench, the terms of reference are written in a general way so that they serve “as a template for any future formation of this kind of ad hoc committee for the purpose of Faculty restructuring.” Moreover, one of its last items includes a report from committee members with suggested changes for the SPGC to improve the terms of reference. These terms were approved during the January meeting with minor adjustments.
Media inquiry and full response from the administration
The following questions were sent on January 14, 2026. The response from the administration was received on January 16, 2026.
Courier: The proposal for program discontinuances and suspension in the latest Senate agenda notes that program suspensions are now being brought under Policy B.104’s governance as a legal precaution, whereas previously they were not. To formalize this significant change and ensure clarity, is the administration planning to review and update Policy B.104 and its procedure to explicitly include the process for suspending program intake? If not, what other measure is being proposed to formalize this change?
Admin: B.104 (and its supporting procedure) is currently under review. Program suspensions will be considered for inclusion in the updated policy and procedure.
Courier: Does the Board of Governors have a system to track which policies are overdue for review? And what are the criteria to decide which policy reviews to prioritize?
Admin: The policy office tracks all policies. Each board committee receives a report in September, outlining the plan for policy review and creation, and in June, outlining the progress made to implement that plan. Prioritization is a joint exercise between the policy office and the policy owner, based on a number of factors. These include the time since the policy was last reviewed, whether there have been any significant external changes (especially regulatory change or direction from the ministry), if there have been any issues with the operation of the policy, the importance of the policy area and the available capacity. Timing of policy reviews may also be affected by major initiatives (for example, the ERP project impacts a number of finance policies that, as a result, will have an earlier review) and other policy updates where there is crossover. In-year reports are sometimes brought to the committee where significant changes to the agreed plan are proposed.
Courier: Policies B.104 and B.105 are both years overdue for their scheduled reviews. The university is currently relying on these policies to make historic, high-impact decisions on program closures and faculty mergers. Does the board consider this to be a problem? If so, does the Board have a strategy in place to review and modernize these policies in the near future?
Admin: B.104 and B.105 are currently under review. The board governance and policy committee agreed (in April 2025) to a new timeline for these reviews with a fall 2026 deadline in order to align with the planned preparatory work currently being completed in support of the eventual implementation of a new curriculum management system.