KSA’s internal system and governance structure are broken
The student association’s 1980s-governance system is in desperate need of reforms

The KSA has collected more than $11 million in student fees over 14 years for two student buildings at KPU. (Rob Mumford)

More than $11 million — that’s how much students have paid over 14 years for a fund intended to build two student buildings at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. Yet, the Kwantlen Student Association hasn’t even broken ground on one of them.
If you’re wondering how we got here, the answer lies in chronic dysfunction within the association, marred by infighting, allegations of misconduct, and questionable management decisions, as highlighted in a 2011 external governance and organization report and recent news reporting.
A deeper question, however, still lingers. Why do these issues persist even as elected officials on the KSA’s board of directors (council) change year after year?
If leadership alone were the problem, new directors would have corrected the course by now. Instead, decades of turmoil reveal a fundamental issue — the KSA itself is broken, making its internal system and governance the root cause of ongoing troubles.
While the problems within the KSA are significant, they’re not entirely unique — other student organizations encounter similar structural pitfalls. What sets the KSA apart, though, is its failure to address them.
In short, the KSA has outgrown its governance structure, and students are paying the price for it. Formed in the early 1980s to represent students of what was then Kwantlen College, the KSA originally operated with a small budget and minimal resources, relying on board members as staff. Board meetings often doubled as staff meetings, a common setup for small non-profits, like an elementary school parent advisory council (PAC).
However, as organizations grow, separating governance and management becomes essential. It’s like a pizza shop owner managing one store. As the shop expands into a chain, the owner must focus on policies and goals for their managers and staff rather than daily operations of each new location. The KSA, however, never made this transition, and that’s at the core of its dysfunction.
Without a clear separation between management and governance, inefficiencies and delays are inevitable, whether it’s approving a club or securing event funding. Currently, all these decisions funnel through the council in some way, forcing students to wait for the next meeting to make their case.
Ideally, staff within an organization should handle these matters according to established policies to ensure fair and timely decisions. Concentrating decision-making power within the council turns every issue into a political minefield, ripe for disputes and open to manipulation.
Compounding this is the fact that the KSA’s governance issues are like the iceberg that sank the Titanic. Even if you remove the iceberg, the damage to the ship remains. Consider club approvals as an example. Removing the board from this process would require clear policies guiding staff on club criteria, fund allocation, and reporting.
However, crafting such policies is complex. Poorly designed policies could favour certain clubs or create so much bureaucracy that resources intended for them get lost in paperwork. Multiply this complexity across the organization, and you risk breaking the KSA in other ways.
Reforming the student association’s governance means overhauling the entire organization. Governance is the root cause, but addressing it requires a whole-body approach, much like treating a snakebite. You don’t just focus on the bite itself — you address the venom spreading throughout the body. And this dysfunction, originating from the KSA council, has been permeating every aspect of the organization for decades.
With all this dysfunction, you may wonder why the KSA hasn’t implemented any reforms. For one, by provincial law, KPU is required to charge students KSA fees and pass it on to the student association, irrespective of its performance.
Years ago, the KSA’s own auditors highlighted that they couldn’t account for a large sum of money. Yet, KPU still funneled millions to the KSA. Change happens when there’s pressure to reform, but for the KSA, this pressure is absent. The student association receives student money whether it delivers or not.
In 2023, KSA board members were collectively paid $275,241. A reformed governance structure would mean a significant pay cut for board members, with funds reallocated to professional staff, requiring the board to voluntarily relinquish much of its control and pay.
The KSA, in its current state, is unfortunately incapable of meaningful change. Its board structure not only passively rewards inaction but also fosters misconduct through a systemic lack of accountability.
Until we confront the reality of the situation that has trapped both students and the university, it won’t matter who is elected to the KSA board in 2025. The student association will remain broken.