“Improper use” of in camera proceedings led to two executives being removed five days later
Laura Morales Padilla (she/her) // EIC
In the course of five days, the now former President Harjot Singh and former Vice-President Finance Meharveen Manchanda of the Capilano Students’ Union (CSU) went from allegedly attempting to interfere with the election process on March 27 to being removed from office on March 31, 2026. The quick turnaround to address the alleged misconduct was only possible because of the recent motion to appoint an Ethics, Conduct, and Conflict of Interest Officer (as part of the new Bylaw X), which passed on the Special General Meeting held on February 24, 2026.
During the CSU Board of Directors meeting on March 27, after the elections administrator—Kalpna Solanki—presented her final report for the CSU 2026 General Elections, the president requested a confidential session. According to the CSU Procedures Manual, these sessions are “to discuss human resources and labour relations issues, contract negotiations, legal issues, the purchase or sale of real property, or other issues determined by the Board to be sufficiently confidential or sensitive to move in camera.”
Once the request was put forward, the chair asked who was allowed to stay for the confidential session. The CSU staff were asked to leave and guests—including a candidate who got disqualified in the recent election and the Courier’s co-Editor-in-Chief—were allowed to stay, as well as the elections administrator. As per the CSU Procedures Manual, “No one attending the in camera portion of a Board meeting may disclose any information discussed in camera without the authorization of the Board.” However, the details of what was discussed during this session became public the very next day, when Solanki sent a letter to president Singh and VP Manchanda, addressing their alleged misconduct during the mentioned in camera session. A copy of the email was sent to the President and Associate Vice-President Student Success at Capilano University, as well as the Courier and CSU staff. “The matters addressed in the letter are serious,” stated Solanki on March 28, “They include attempted interference with the Elections Administrator’s independent role, improper efforts to revisit election matters outside the established process, and concerns relating to the protection of complainant anonymity.”
Regarding the discussions that took place during the in camera session, Solanki wrote: “statements were made that I know were false and that contributed to a misleading narrative about the election, the complaints process, and my role as Elections Administrator,” without providing more details. Then, she requested that the Board take several steps immediately, including confirmation in writing that they will not seek to identify “any confidential complainant or witness connected to the 2026 general election,” that the Board won’t attempt to pressure or influence “the Elections Administrator in relation to complaint, disqualification, appeal, reporting, or related matters,” among eight other steps.
Singh sent a response on Monday, March 30, “on behalf of the executive team,” in which they maintained that the confidential session was appropriate to have considering “the sensitive nature of the subject matter, including election processes, candidate disqualifications, and appeals.” The response acknowledged that “some of the discussion or questions raised may have been perceived as more direct or critical than intended,” but they disagreed with Solanki’s allegations, stating instead that “The inability to distinguish between questions about process and actual interference raises concerns regarding judgment and neutrality.” They also pointed out that by sending her letter to external parties, Solanki didn’t comply with “in camera confidentiality requirements and about the effect of sharing internal governance matters with external parties where reputational consequences may arise.” This response was signed by three executive directors, including Singh, Manchanda and Rahul Singh Reandi, Vice-President Student Affairs.
The Courier reached out to the elections administrator on March 30, asking how she responds to concerns that her letter may have violated the confidentiality provision. Solanki responded on the same day, pointing out that this provision “must be interpreted harmoniously with the CSU bylaws as a whole and cannot be construed so broadly as to immunize misconduct from internal reporting, investigation, or adjudication.” Furthermore, in her view, this misconduct engaged Bylaw X which allows the Elections Administrator to exercise the powers of the vacant Ethics, Conduct, and Conflict of Interest Officer. “Any disclosure was therefore confined to what was reasonably necessary to discharge those bylaw-based duties and to preserve the integrity of the Society’s governance and election framework,” Solanki explained, “and should not be characterized as a waiver or misuse of in camera confidentiality.”
On the same day Solanki received the executive team’s response, she sent a “formal Notice of Allegations and Opportunity to Respond issued under Bylaw X” to Singh and Manchanda. On March 31, both directors sent their response letters. Singh argued that the allegation of “Misuse of Presidential and Meeting Authority” is unfounded and “speculative,” explaining that “It confuses the fact that guests were present with an allegation that they were strategically invited for confrontation or improper influence. Presence is not proof of purpose.” He also denied the other five allegations, which included “Governance Misconduct / Failure to Act in Good Faith” and “Interference with the Election Process.”
In her response, Manchanda “strongly” denied the allegations of “Interference with the Election Process,” “Conduct Inconsistent with the Protection of Confidential Complainants,” and “Improper Use of In Camera Proceedings / Governance Misconduct.” To the first allegation, she responded: “Asking questions, seeking clarification and discussing the process is not the same as interfering with the election process.” To the allegation of “Attempted Direction of the Elections Administrator,” the VP of Finance confirmed putting forward the motion quoted in the notice:
“BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Board of Directors instruct the Arbitration Panel and the Elections Administrator to provide a written report to the Board of Directors on the basis of disqualification for both disqualified Vice-President External candidates that goes over the procedure on appeals.”
According to Bylaw IX, “the Elections Administrator shall not be directed by any member of the Board or employee of the Society,” so the motion was ruled out of order for attempting to “direct the elections administrator in the course of their duties,” as worded in Solanki’s allegation. Manchanda questioned, “on what basis can the simple act of proposing it be treated as misconduct?” as she pointed out that this was the only motion raised on the topic and was ruled out of order immediately. “No instruction was given, no report was demanded, no action resulted, and no interference or harm occurred,” she wrote in the official response to Solanki.
Seeing that the Board of Directors information on the CSU website showed that the President and VP Finance positions are vacant, the Courier reached out to the CSU staff on April 2 to verify whether the vacancies resulted from Solanki’s misconduct investigation. They confirmed that the elections administrator, exercising the bylaw powers of the ethics officer, determined that the conduct warranted removal from office on the night of March 31. Given that Manchanda was reelected as VP Finance, the 2026-27 elected term will begin with this position being vacant. On the other hand, the CSU Bylaws give the board of directors authority to “ratify an early start date for the 2026-27 president to ensure governance leadership continuity,” as explained by the CSU staff.
Lastly, the Courier reached out to the now former President and VP Finance, Singh and Manchanda, to comment on the recent turn of events. They sent a joint statement on April 3 (read full statement here), in which they affirm that they “were treated as criminals right from the start,” and instead of a fair process, they described it as a “personal vendetta dressed up as governance, carried out by one individual who acted as complainant, investigator, judge, and executioner all at once.” Overall, they described their immediate removal as “a dangerous precedent for every future student leader.” Meanwhile, Solanki maintained in her March 28 letter that the attempted motion after the alleged misconduct in camera is “compelling evidence that certain directors, specifically President Harjot Singh and Director Meharveen Manchanda, were seeking to direct, pressure, or interfere with an election matter that the bylaws place beyond Board control.” It will be up to the remaining directors to review the process and assess if this highly efficient accountability mechanism is working as intended.