Political meddling or protecting students?
Does the "fiduciary duty" (i.e. acting in the best interests of the students) of a university's Board of Governors allow it to withhold funds from a student union when that union refuses to provide audited financial statements to the Board?
That's the crux of the current situation at Carleton University, where the Board of Governors is withholding student fees from the Carleton University Students' Association (CUSA) and the Graduate Students' Association (GSA).
The student unions have filed a petition with the Ontario courts in an attempt to force Carleton to give them the fee money.
The university board's position is that, according to the auditors advising them, their fiduciary duty is to make sure money collected is used for the stated purpose.
The student unions are refusing to make public their audits and are accusing the University of trying to interfere. They say they are only accountable to the students and not to the university .
"The claim that this is about financial accountability is a red herring", stated GSA president Kimalee Phillip in a news release, "this is about political interference plain and simple. They want to silence students' voices on-campus."
In a statement on the University website, the institution says, "The university has no interest in determining or directing how student associations at Carleton University spend their funds. The university is simply asking for CUSA and GSA to be transparent and accountable to the Carleton community with regard to how student fees are disbursed."
I can understand the paranoia of the student associations.
They often disagree with Carleton's administration and an argument could easily be made that it is in the best interests of the institution to "interfere" in the operations of the student unions.
The student unions are a major risk to the institution's reputation. One only needs to remember the most embarrassing incident in Carleton's history.
In 2008, CUSA voted to boycott the cystic fibrosis fundraiser Shinerama on the grounds that the disease only affects white people.
But even if the university wanted to use its leverage over student fees to control the students unions, it is a weak position. By providing full disclosure, the student unions would take this position away from the university.
The Board of Governors that collects the fee from students does have a responsibility to ensure the fees are being used for their intended purpose.
The best method of ensuring the funds are being properly used is to read the entire financial audits of the student unions.
If CUSA and the GSA were serious about being transparent to students, they would release their annual audits for public viewing. And doing so would expose if Carleton is using this as a "red herring" or not.
By not making their books public, it looks like the student unions are more interested in playing petty political games and engaging in hyperbole than actually finding a solution to their current disagreement.
For its part, the university is providing funds for necessary services and holding the remainder in trust until such time as financial responsibility is ensured.
Ultimately, the courts will have to decide and create new legal precedent - there are at present no common law rulings dealing with the specifics of defining the limits of a university's "fiduciary duty" in relation to fees collected for student unions or societies.
The closest case we have to cite is Douglas Students' Union v. Douglas College.
In this case, the Douglas Students' Union failed to complete financial audits for a few years and Douglas College refused to turn over student fees until the audits were completed.
The student union took the institution to court but the court did not rule either way if the actions of Douglas College were legal under the legislation governing student societies in British Columbia.
The court appointed a receiver to oversee the finances of the student union and both sides - the student union and the college - claimed victory in the case.
The situation at Carleton is much different - the student unions are not alleged to have incomplete audits, just that they're not making them public.
It all comes down to the limits of "fiduciary duty" and depending on the judge that hears the case, either side could win.
Tagged with
student,
fees,
carleton,
duty,
cusa,
financial,
union,
withhold,
gsa,
transparency,
fiduciary
| Comments (15)
| 
JOEY COLEMAN