Since the start of the 2025-26 school year, the Brock University Students’ Union (BUSU) has been embroiled in controversy after Omar Rasheed’s sudden removal as BUSU Board Chair during a meeting in September of last year.
The Brock Press reported on the controversy in January, which included interviews with BUSU President Fiona Seabrook and Rasheed’s replacement as Board Chair, Tomas Oviedo.
After the article was published, Rasheed — who remains on the BUSU Board of Directors (BoD), albeit not in the Chair position — agreed to an interview with The Brock Press to share his perspective and respond to comments made by other Board members in the Press’ previous reporting.
The Brock Press also spoke with various other members of BUSU’s BoD, who are quoted as is relevant throughout this article. Fiona Seabrook and Tomas Oviedo also provided individual written statements to the Press responding to several of the allegations made throughout this article.
Oviedo’s statement has been edited for length and clarity.
Rasheed criticizes “backdoor diplomacy”
Rasheed began by drawing attention to the “many complaints” that came against members of senior management, which he alleges were not investigated. He further alleged that the complaints were “ignored” within BUSU, mentioning a lack of a timeline, process and general transparency in addressing the concerns. Furthermore, Rasheed alleges that President Seabrook refused to carry out a particular motion, though he did not mention the nature of the motion.
“Instead of implementing the motion, the president obstructed it,” said Rasheed. “And [that] included delaying execution; reframing the motion in communications; introducing conditions that were, by the way, never approved by the Board. And essentially, they were just refusing to act on the Board’s direction.”
In her statement, Seabrook rebutted the accusation that she obstructed any motions:
“As President, I do not vote, so I don’t have the ability to solely obstruct a motion. Any motion that the Board presents ultimately requires a majority vote from the voting directors. Part of my role is to suggest clarifications or conditions to ensure that motions align with considered risk and fiduciary duties. Offering information or making suggestions to ensure that we are complying with governance standards is good governance, not obstruction.”
Rasheed alleged that Seabrook “had private closed-door discussions with selected Board members outside of formal meetings, including after motions had already been discussed [in the] past, and in some cases, voted on.” He added that these conversations “took place without the knowledge or participation of the full Board” and they “influenced the direction of the members […] moving forward.”
Rasheed also alleged that Board members Kira Simmons and Olivia Gillespie were pulled into closed-door meetings with Seabrook. Rasheed isn’t exactly sure what was discussed due to the conversations’ private nature, but he suspects Seabrook may have been trying to influence their voting decisions.
Seabrook denies Rasheed’s accusation that there were any backdoor meetings of the nature he described:
“I’ve had conversations with Board members outside of Board meetings because we go to the same school and we have things in common,” wrote Seabrook. “Directors can speak with one another outside of formal meetings. Each Director is independently responsible for their decisions and fiduciary obligations. At no time did I attempt to improperly influence any Director’s vote.”
Rasheed believes that “backdoor diplomacy” was responsible for his removal as Chair during the controversial September vote.
Rasheed stated that the events that he experienced could happen to any individual pushing for transparency within BUSU. “I’ve seen many examples; anyone who challenges the structure is met with a form of resistance or some other — you know, excuse my language — BS.”
Rasheed told me about a variety of concerns that he had within BUSU’s governance operations. He alleged that Seabrook attempted to “push email voting on major matters involving significant financial exposure,” which he said is not permitted under BUSU’s by-laws. When legal counsel confirmed that email voting is not allowed, it was “still pushed as a way to avoid any discussions or meetings” and risked “rushing decisions,” said Rasheed.
In response to the allegation over pushing email voting, Seabrook told the Press that “email voting has been used in prior years when meetings could not be scheduled on short notice or if quorum challenges existed. I suggested email voting during a period when the Board was experiencing scheduling difficulties and faced upcoming deadlines.”
As for the complaints against senior management, Rasheed alleged that “the main one was about the interference in election processes,” which he said occurred on multiple occasions. Rasheed clarified that this did not have to do with the controversial elimination of executive elections (which was voted on by student referendum in 2022).
Rasheed said that senior management would indirectly change decisions or take unauthorized action behind closed doors. He did not want to name any explicit examples, but mentioned some decisions being “enforced by staff.”
Expressing his frustrations with BUSU’s governance practices, Rasheed stated that his removal as Board Chair “was a big one.”
He alleged that his removal from that leadership position made it “significantly easier [for management] to operate without any scrutiny.” He added that “they could kind of do what they want, more or less,” with Oviedo and his “associates” having enabled this outcome by “aligning with management rather than asserting the Board’s independence.”
Rasheed made it clear that none of this had to do with personal disagreements; rather, he called it an issue of “governance culture.”
Regarding Rasheed’s concern that Oviedo’s leadership favours BUSU staff over Board members, Oviedo responded with the following statement: “BUSU as an organization works to solve student issues. That goes for student workers, staff, senior membership and Board members, VPs and presidents as a whole.
“The Board is the ultimate authority, however, within the organization, and as such it is our job to be naturally critical of BUSU processes and the actions of staff, student activities and any potential threats to the student experience, as well as organizational accountability and transparency.
“While obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinion of the Board and my position within the Board, I have worked with external support within the Board and through my own critical analysis as well to ensure that there is no wrongdoing by any staff members within the organization.
“I have no affiliation and/or benefit to supporting staff interests, as again, I am solely elected by the student body to serve the student body.
“Though currently I believe many misleading claims about the role of BUSU staff have been made about the organization as a whole that may shift public perception — such as overcontrolling finances and puppeteering student governance — these claims don’t hold up when considering the fact that BUSU publishes all its financial records and has Board governance decision-making processes which make policy decisions completely independent from that of staff.”
Concerns over access to legal counsel
Rasheed alleged that the situation has been prone to “unauthorized legal consultation.” He said that, throughout the issues BUSU has experienced over the school year, Oviedo and Seabrook had been “privately consulting legal counsel without Board approval.” The Board was informed afterward, he further alleged, an act which he contended “undermines collective decision-making.”
Rasheed alleged that he was not afforded the same opportunity to legal counsel: “When I asked legal counsel a basic question — you know, if I could speak to the media or whatever the case may be — I was refused advice as an individual Board member.”
According to Rasheed, Oviedo said that all members are free to reach out to legal counsel subject to approval by BUSU staff, but he found that access to legal counsel was ultimately “gated.”
In his statement to The Brock Press, Oviedo denied that BUSU’s access to legal counsel is inequitable.
“As a Board member we all have access to our BUSU legal counsel, and additionally, all Board members have an equitable ability to access said counsel,” wrote Oviedo.
He added that individual Board members are “not barred from accessing counsel that has been approved by the student union” and that it is “actively encouraged” for Board members to access legal counsel as it can help the Board make the “best decisions relating to their legal and fiduciary obligations to the student population.”
In her own response to Rasheed’s claim, Seabrook offered an explanation as to why certain Directors may not have the same access to legal counsel:
“BUSU retains corporate legal counsel to provide guidance on various matters including those regarding governance and our bylaws. As President, I have signing authority for the organization, and so I have access to that counsel when clarification is needed.
“The full-time executive staff, as well as the Board Chair and Vice Chair all have signing authority, and authorization requires two signatures. In a summer Board meeting, the Board passed a motion that gave authority to the Board Chair to seek legal counsel and report back to the Board. Although the directors in the Chair position changed, the motion did not. In this instance, legal counsel was consulted through the proper signing authorities and was consistent with prior Board motions that delegated that authority.
“Access to legal counsel is not afforded to everyone on the Board equally, as not every director has signing authority.”
Concerns over the third-party investigation into BUSU
As for the third-party investigation into BUSU’s practices — an investigation which, according to Rasheed, cost approximately $150,000 CAD of student money — Rasheed is concerned that internal judgment may have already been reached before the investigation could fairly conclude.
“When leadership expresses conclusions before [the investigation] actually concludes, it undermines both the processes and the credibility of the organization,” said Rasheed. He also wondered why the student body is paying for an investigation “if the outcome appears to have been pre-decided.”
According to Rasheed, this is all indicative of an organization that “operates less like a student union and more like a staff-run entity.”
“Student oversight is treated as an obstacle of some sort, instead of the purpose,” said Rasheed.
Seabrook does not agree with Rasheed’s assessment:
“The investigator provided a report based on documented materials, recorded motions, and interviews. The Board has received the report, but no formal outcome has been determined. The Board has only reviewed the recommendations that the investigator provided under controlled conditions to protect the integrity of the process. I reject the suggestion that the outcome of the investigation was predetermined,” she wrote.
Rasheed later showed The Brock Press an email sent to fellow Board member Abdulrahman Al-Naqeb from a supposed investigator involved in the process. As of writing, The Brock Press was unable to verify the sender’s connection to the investigation, but the information has been included because it was provided directly by Rasheed.
In the email, the alleged investigator cancels an upcoming meeting with Al-Naqeb, saying BUSU has chosen to close the investigation before the election process for the following year’s Board of Directors.
The email to Al-Naqeb reads:
“It appears that the investigation has been concluded even though I did not have a chance to interview all witnesses, including you.
“I really appreciate your willingness to participate and I know you were looking forward to sharing your perspective. Unfortunately, because my mandate has ended, I need to cancel our appointment for Monday. If for whatever reason BUSU decides to re-start the investigation, I will be back in touch. Thanks again for your cooperation and best wishes for the future.”
Allegations against Board member Bella Bai
As for the previously unnamed Board member who was criticized as having breached a policy by Abdulrahman Al-Naqeb in the third Board meeting in October, Rasheed said that the member in question is Bella Bai, who he said “violated certain laws of confidentiality” by speaking about in-camera discussions outside of private conversations.
According to Rasheed, BUSU took no significant action against Bai — but he feels that if he had violated confidentiality policies in the same way, he would have been treated differently. He believes that those who side with BUSU’s staff will likely face less consequences than those who vouch for the Board’s independence.
The Brock Press spoke with Bella Bai, who confirmed that she was the Board member subject to a formal complaint and the same one that Al-Naqeb referenced in the October meeting. However, she denied having ever violated confidentiality rules, and alleged that the concern stemmed from an individual fabricating screenshots of online conversations that falsely showed Bai violating the BoD’s confidentiality directives.
Bai would not provide specifics about who submitted the complaint but did state that the individual is a former friend of hers, and a Brock student who is not on BUSU’s Board of Directors. Bai would not confirm whether the individual has a position within BUSU in a different capacity. She believes the individual’s goal is to have Bai ultimately removed from BUSU’s BoD.
“Be careful of what you might see on social media and be careful of whether you want to trust it,” said Bai, referencing the allegedly doctored screenshots.
Regarding Rasheed’s claim that the Board has not yet investigated the complaint against Bai, she acknowledged that this is true, but says they have plans to do so and will likely discuss it in the next meeting.
“This was brought up [in] almost every Board meeting after the complaint was sent out, but because we have priorities, we would prioritize things that best benefit the students’ interests, as well as its urgency. And a lot of things have been going on, but this complaint and this concern was brought up in every single meeting. So, we will be addressing it as soon as possible,” said Bai.
When asked what else she wanted to share, Bai said that although she will not be in the next Board of Directors, she is “very concerned about the Board’s future.”
Disagreements over whether Rasheed was made aware of the September vote
In his interview with the Press, Rasheed recounted his thought process throughout the meeting mentioned earlier in which he was removed as Chair.
Attending virtually from his home, he said that he expected the meeting to proceed as usual. When Oviedo pitched an addition to the agenda, it came as a shock to Rasheed. He alleged it wasn’t, however, a surprise to everyone at the meeting, noting that it “seemed just too orchestrated.”
Worse yet, Rasheed claims that he was not informed of the decision directly after the meeting, seeing as he didn’t know the nature of the vote that would be taking place after he left.
Notably, Rasheed’s statement contradicts Oviedo’s retelling of events in his October 2025 interview with The Brock Press. In that interview, Oviedo alleged that Rasheed and his associates were made aware of the vote that would be taking place, and that he “compelled all members to stay and state what they want to say throughout the entirety of the meeting.”
Rasheed alleged that he wasn’t made aware of the voting item prior to the meeting.
“No, no, I wasn’t aware,” said Rasheed. “As I mentioned, the meeting happened abruptly. Decisions happened abruptly, and then when I left, I came back to see everything on my phone, and that’s when I learned about it. So no, I was not informed.”
In his response to Rasheed’s statement that he wasn’t made aware of the voting item in advance of the meeting, Oviedo again asserted that Rasheed was made aware of the nature of the vote.
“The decision to remove Omar Rasheed was made incredibly clear to all members involved within the respective meeting,” said Oviedo.
“While I do agree with the claim that certain in-camera items may not be given far in advance (this is very common among all in-camera Board meetings as most content within in-camera motions gets spoken about directly in-camera with little prep), Board members across the Board within in-camera motions are still given all the information they need to make knowledgeable and informed choices. What people choose to do with that information and how members choose to react to that information is up to them.”
Public humiliation
Rasheed feels the result of the acceded voting item to remove him has been “public humiliation.” Clips of the Board meeting were reposted on Brock’s unofficial subreddit, leading online critics to produce commentary and memes about the situation as it unfolded.
“They intended to humiliate me, you know, out-of-camera,” said Rasheed. “They could have done it in-camera or whatever the case may be, but they intended to do it off-camera so they can make it more public.”
Rasheed stated that the controversy impacted his school life as well as personal friendships, some of which have come to a permanent end over the controversy. He further stated that the controversy affected his mental health.
He called Seabrook’s public statement — which was initially posted on behalf of the Board before Seabrook apologized and acknowledged that it only represented her perspective — a further attempt at humiliation.
As for the posts about the controversy that filled the unofficial r/brocku subreddit for a couple months in late 2025, Rasheed explained that he attempted to distance himself from said content as much as possible but admitted to occasionally taking “a little peek.”
“If we make a decision as a Board and it flops, that’s okay because we flop together, you know what I mean? But when people do things on their own, when they do it unjustly, when they don’t do it in accordance with by-laws […] it puts the whole organization’s image at risk, let alone my own,” said Rasheed.
Since speaking with the Press in mid-January, Rasheed had become frustrated with the way this controversy was taking up most of the Board’s attention.
“There hasn’t been a single meeting, essentially, that is about students,” said Rasheed. “While we claim we’re working for students and all these things, all the meetings and discussions are about protecting individuals, and it’s just so infuriating that I’m even a part of this.”
Rasheed’s perspective on the student response and protest
Rasheed spoke on what it was like to receive so much positive attention from students in light of the controversy, as many of the posts on the unofficial r/brocku subreddit were in support of Rasheed, as were many of the BUSU protestors on campus last October.
“It came as a surprise to me, but unlike the Board meeting [in which Rasheed was removed as Chair], it was a pleasant surprise,” said Rasheed.
He expressed hope that this attention can be converted into change within the students’ union:
“I think it’s time that we bring this change to the organization.”
Rasheed responds to other Directors’ concerns and allegations
When asked why he declined the meeting agenda in the third Board meeting despite receiving the contents in advance, Rasheed explained that he was afraid that the alleged attempt at humiliating him from the previous meeting would be repeated.
“[Considering] what happened during that last meeting, anything can happen in the third,” said Rasheed. “Why would I be put at risk? You know, what was the point of that? Would they ruin my reputation again? I just got out of this mental state slowly, and to have another meeting, I was like, you know what? I don’t have the capacity for this.”
Rasheed said that another contributing factor was that several Board members, including himself, had received “threats” after the previous meeting, and he was thinking about all Board members when declining the meeting agenda. He added that he did not speak with anyone else about declining the agenda in advance of the meeting.
Rasheed also responded to Seabrook’s statement in the previous Press article that he had removed her from one of the summer’s special meetings which are unreleased to the public, something she called “really hurtful” and left her feeling “disregarded.”
Rasheed confirmed that Seabrook was removed from a special meeting and alleged that his reason for removing Seabrook was because she had a “conflict of interest in her employment matters in this topic.” He claimed that Seabrook was given an opportunity to declare this alleged conflict of interest, but she did not. When asked what Seabrook’s conflict of interest was, Rasheed would not disclose anything other than that there was an alleged “form of confidentiality.”
He also claimed that he needed to “maintain decorum” in the meeting as Seabrook was alleged by him to be “speaking over other members and being a net negative in that regard.” Rasheed added that it was a group decision and she was voted out by several members.
In response, Seabrook told the Press that:
“I did not believe myself to be in a conflict of interest and was not provided with a clear explanation of a perceived conflict at the time. If there were moments of overlap in our discussion, my intention was to seek clarity regarding process and governance concerns.”
Rasheed also denied the allegation that he had put the student centre at risk during his time in leadership, a comment that had come up in Seabrook’s public statement as well as her and Oviedo’s individual interviews with the Press.
“The student centre was never at risk. It had a few years to be at risk; still nothing, which means there was never a risk.”
Rasheed said that he “didn’t have any plans to involve or change the decision” regarding the new student centre. He believes the allegations around the student centre to be “their way to put this as a narrative,” adding that he “couldn’t care less about the student centre in that regard.”
Oviedo’s retelling of events contradicts that of Rasheed.
“My thought process as a Board member is fundamentally grounded in objective actions, factual occurrences and logical deductions that ensue from that,” wrote Oviedo.
“My decision-making is student-centred and looks to protect the social and financial interests of Brock students based solely on my commitment to the student body and not my own personal opinions. I would never intentionally look to defame or discredit a Board member. I will also not stand silent in the face of genuine objective threats that BUSU faces, and the threat of losing a two-million-dollar-plus student development that was democratically voted on by our student population is a massive threat.”
Seabrook also responded to this comment:
“As President, my responsibility is to achieve strategic priorities and mitigate risk. My comments were focused on upholding governance standards, due diligence and risk management, not on personal narratives. Raising my concerns about risk exposure is part of my fiduciary duties.”
BUSU today
Seabrook’s closing statement acknowledges the ongoing tensions around the BUSU controversy: “I recognize that students and Board members hold strong opinions about recent events. Throughout this process, my decisions have been guided by fiduciary responsibility, governance compliance, and what I believe to be the long-term best interests of Brock students.”
As for whether Rasheed is on speaking terms with Oviedo and Seabrook, as of the Press’ interview in January, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Rasheed mentioned one conversation with Oviedo and a few brief talks with Seabrook a few months before the interview, but he admitted that they aren’t on the best terms.
Rasheed was asked if he had any regrets about joining BUSU. His answer was unequivocal:
“Absolutely no regrets. Absolutely no regrets at all, because it’s in pursuit of a common student-led goal. I want to make a change.
“And if to an extent, I wasn’t successful or whatever the case may be, I’m content, because I know I made a form of impact and I will continue to do so in any capacity that I can. To [put] it in simple terms, it takes time. A form of revolution would take time, right?”