Lengthy conversations about fairness and potential discrimination led to the BoD delaying a solution to fix the funding shortages that have plagued the CPC since 2023.
At least once a month, the BUSU Board of Directors (BoD) meets to discuss and vote on a wide variety of student-relevant topics. Video recordings of these meetings are available on their YouTube channel, but this series aims to condense and relay the relevant information contained within them to Brock students. BUSU’s board meetings represent the core of student politics in the university and are, therefore, important for students to be in the know about.
During their March 10 meeting, the largest topic of discussion was BUSU club funding.
Indeed, the proposal — headed by BUSU Clubs Manager Chloe Villers and Clubs Administrator Jamie Wong — and subsequent board discussion lasted over an hour, filling most of the meeting.
Villers launched the proposal by giving the BoD some updates about club funding in recent years, reminding directors of the fiasco in 2023-24 when funding ran out on November 16, a mere two months into the term. In 2024-25, explained Villers, the Clubs Policy Committee (CPC) acquired an extra $77,000 from closed club accounts and the surplus to supplement the $143,000 budget, but without this money, funding would have dried up as soon as November 1.
The trend is both disturbing and clear: there’s simply not enough money to fund clubs at their current pace, especially considering that while the CPC will once again pull $50,000 from the surplus in 2025, that will be the final time.
At the same time, said Villers, the number of clubs at Brock has increased at a rate of around 15 per cent per year since 2022, meaning more funding is being approved and requested while money is drying up.
In September, the CPC released new funding guidelines for clubs that have helped streamline the process, and clubs are fundraising their own funds at a higher rate than before, but it hasn’t made the difference they hoped for, said Villers.
One issue has been the primary cause, said Villers: in the 2024-25 academic year, a mere five clubs received 48 per cent of the overall club funding budget. Brock’s Model United Nations, Muslim Students’ Association, Pakistani Students’ Association, Black Student Association and Indian Students’ Association all received over $10,000 in funding, with some as high as $20,000 or more. In comparison, the remaining Brock clubs received an average of $1,315.
Villers and Wong proposed that BUSU establish a $5,000 cap on the amount of funding any single club could receive in a year. Villers explained that this would still be above the average of other universities’ student unions — such as Guelph ($1,000 cap), Carleton ($2,700 cap), TMU ($5,000 cap) and McMaster ($800 cap; funding restricted to returning clubs) — while ensuring equal opportunities for all Brock clubs to grow and thrive regardless of their size or previous finding history.
The CPC’s goal, said Villers, was to “eliminate disparities” between Brock clubs.
But many of BUSU’s directors weren’t convinced. Tomas Oviedo was the most outspoken against the cap, saying that some clubs — such as larger cultural clubs or ones that represent Brock on a global stage, like Model UN — are more important than others, and as such shouldn’t be “unfairly discriminated against through the funding policy.” Oviedo suggested that a proportional or tiered system based on membership or the size and scope of events would work better than a flat limit, but his suggestion came with the unclear potential for specific clubs to receive more funding as determined on a “case-by-case” basis.
Villers responded to this suggestion by saying that tiered systems are complicated to implement and can lead to unfairness among clubs. Sometimes clubs have vast memberships but only a portion of those members show up to events, and sometimes new clubs make waves in the student community. Moreover, “every single club is going to want to be the exception,” said Villers, and operating on a case-by-case basis like they are now means a fraction of student clubs receive significantly larger portions than the rest.
“We obviously understand that those major clubs that were listed are very integral to Brock and they provide a great student experience,” said Villers. “I also would like to argue that every single club — so every 141 clubs that we do have — are integral to Brock and they are all very important to club members and club executives.”
After Wong and Villers left the meeting, the directors continued to discuss different ways to solve the funding issue, all of which failed to address the impending lack of club funding that BUSU will soon find themselves facing. Oviedo continued to champion a proportional system, saying that the $5,000 cap was not very flexible, but nobody could figure out exactly how such a system would work.
BUSU General Manager Robert Hilson pointed out that if the BoD gave the CPC an “open-ended” policy, it would be difficult to interpret and manage. He said that any sort of proportional system is going to have its drawbacks because all clubs are different.
A few directors supported the CPC’s proposition. Board Chair Brielle Kaminsky was the most outspoken in her support, saying that the system already operates on a case-by-case basis and it’s proven to be unsustainable. Furthermore, she said that being flexible means being flexible for all clubs, not just a few. Kaminsky pointed out that if they need to re-evaluate the $5,000 cap in a few years, a later board can determine next steps, but the cap would do something about the problem now.
Another director gave the example of the Medical Brigades at Brock University, which isn’t a BUSU club but raises thousands of dollars through individual fundraising efforts to travel the world and uphold their mission.
The idea of a referendum to increase the BUSU Clubs Levy — which Villers had previously advised against due to the urgency of the issue — was discussed, but the majority of board members agreed that the $5,000 cap was too firm.
As such, the CPC’s proposal was denied, with one in favour, six against and three abstaining. The board requested that Villers and Wong come up with a more flexible solution and re-present the revised policy in April.
The board quickly moved into a 17-minute in-camera session before the video hopped into what seemed the middle of Hilson’s General Manager’s report. Hilson discussed a few topics in his report, including an upcoming meeting with the Board of Trustees to “come to legal terms” and finalize the Student Centre project, which could begin demolition as early as this summer. Hilson also discussed the omnibus agreement regarding Brock and BUSU’s relationship, in which the union is responding to Brock’s “requests” (which were not explained in any detail), and he opened the floor to any questions about the other items he privately circulated among the board members. With no questions and no other details, Pahuja gave her report.
Much of the President’s report revolved around events both past and upcoming, but the most noteworthy bit was an update on her conversation with Brock’s Associate Vice-President of Students Brad Clarke about the Food First Program, vaguely mentioning issues about names and placement on Brock’s end. This has been an ongoing topic for Pahuja, but she said a final, detailed report would be coming in the next board meeting. Pahuja also reminded the board about the new Student Absence Self-Declaration Form and how she and the executives have been working to make the upcoming executive transition as smooth as possible.
The BoD adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m., setting the stage for a busy April meeting, where a solution to the club funding crisis will hopefully be found.