Complaints filed against GSA president, minister asked to intervene

On April 25, Benjamin J. Kucher, an anthropology master’s student at the University of Alberta, emailed the Minister of Advanced Education, Rajan Sawhney, requesting the ministry’s oversight in ongoing issues with the U of A Graduate Students’ Association (GSA). 

Kucher was also the 2024–25 vice-president (student life) at the GSA until he resigned on December 20, 2024. He told The Gateway in an interview that he resigned to focus on his studies.

He shared that as VPSL at the GSA, he “quickly learned that the culture within the organization is resistant to transparency, accountability, and especially to equity-based leadership.”

In his email to Sawhney, Kucher listed the failure to get approval of the GSA’s budget, the attempt to reduce the associate vice-president (labour)’s (AVPL) stipend, the proposed removal of the Indigenous Strategic Initiatives Fund, expanded travel expenses, operating in closed session meetings, and the resignation of the GSA’s executive director among his concerns. 

Additionally, The Gateway has been informed of four ongoing complaints that have been filed against the GSA President, Haseeb Arshad. There have been additional complaints filed against the GSA speaker and the GSA’s associate director. 

In an email to The Gateway, Arshad disputed the claims made in Kucher’s email.

Complaint filed over perceived threat at April 9 GSA Council meeting

Kucher was one of the individuals who filed a formal complaint against Arshad with the GSA’s Appeals and Complaints Board (ACB). A comment made by Arshad at the April 9 GSA Council meeting was the subject of the complaint.

Arsahd had said “if the budget does not get approved in time … I want to remind you all of [that] every one of us will be responsible.” 

Arsahd also drew a comparison between the GSA and other student associations, including the University of Regina Students’ Union (URSU). U of R terminated its fee collection agreement with the URSU over financial concerns.

Kucher and others perceived this a threat to councillors that intended to vote against the GSA’s budget. 

Kucher said in his complaint that he believes this “constitutes a violation of the GSA’s governing principles of respectful, transparent, and student-centred governance.”

In an interview, Kucher said he filed the complaint because “it’s not just unethical, it’s frankly dangerous at this point.”

“I refuse to normalize this behaviour because too many other people within council and outside of council have been made to feel powerless or afraid to speak up.”

He said he wanted to “hold the line.”

“The GSA has shown a repeated pattern of silencing critics, gaslighting dissenters, and selectively engaging only with those who echo their narrative.”

Arshad told The Gateway that his “intention was to flag a very real financial risk, not to intimidate anyone.”

He said that the budget could later be amended to change spending, but that the university had a preferred date to receive an approved fee assessment from the GSA.

“Missing it could potentially result in no fee assessment, leaving the GSA without cash flow which means no income,” Arshad said.

He said this would impact the GSA’s services and activities.

Two complaints filed against Arshad by incoming AVPL

Nathan Lamarche, currently the English departmental councillor and incoming AVPL, has also filed two separate complaints against Arshad. He told The Gateway he intends to file a third.

Lamarche filed the first complaint on April 1. Lamarche’s complaint alleges that Arshad made personal attacks against Lamarche and has attempted to stop him from speaking at meetings. He also filed a complaint against the GSA’s speaker, Zain Patel, for ignoring certain speakers or giving priority to other speakers at meetings. 

The second complaint alleges that Arshad again attempted to deny Lamarche the opportunity to speak. Specifically, Lamarche said this occurred at a GSA Board (GSAB) meeting. Lamarche also filed a complaint against the GSA’s Associate Director, Cindy Roose, for allegedly removing him from the GSAB meeting, which he was attending online. 

Lamarche filed a third complaint on April 27 against Arshad and a second against Roose. His complaint said that “the same incident has occurred again, as a result of the lack of suspension against either [Arshad] or [Roose].”

According to the GSA’s policy, the ACB must decide within two business days, in consultation with the executive director or their delegate, whether the GSA officer who is subject to the complaint should be suspended until a hearing for the complaint is held. The president is considered a directly elected officer by the GSA. There has been no suspension made as of April 25. 

Lamarche said in an interview with The Gateway that he has only received confirmation that his complaints have been received. Kucher said he hasn’t received any updates about his complaint since he filed it on April 17. 

The Gateway contacted Arshad for comment on the ongoing complaints. Arshad said he was only made aware of one complaint, which he has responded to. He said he is “unable to comment publicly on a complaint while it is still under active adjudication.”

“If any additional complaints exist, I can only assume they have either been dismissed as frivolous, withdrawn, or are still under preliminary review.”

Delays in processing complaints

Lamarche had asked that the chair of the ABC not be involved with his recent complaints due to a conflict of interest. The vice-chair of the ACB then resigned. An interim chair, Malik Awan, was chosen, but Lamarche said he has resigned as well. Awan is still listed on the GSA’s website as the interim chair.

According to the GSA’s policies and bylaws, the ACB can consult the executive director about complaints. The GSA currently does not have an executive director after Lewie Moodley resigned in March. 

Arshad’s term as president ends on April 30. Once he is no longer in office, the ACB no longer has jurisdiction over him, according Lamarche and Kucher. They both believe that their complaints will be abandoned after April 30.

Kucher told The Gateway in an interview that he is concerned that if these complaints go unresolved, there will be “a continuation of this kind of behaviour and normalize it.”

GSA budget survey is “unacceptably biased” Ip and DeKeseredy say

The GSA’s budget has failed twice. The first failure was due to the inability to meet quorum and hold a vote on March 24. Councillors voted against a motion to approve the budget on April 9. A meeting is to be held on April 30 for the GSA Council to vote on the budget again.

Among some of the concerns with the proposed budget was the proposal to cut the AVPL’s stipend by $7,000. There were also concerns around $27,000 that was allocated to a GSA conference. The proposed budget also removed the Indigenous Strategic Initiatives Fund. 

On April 22, the GSA sent a survey to graduate students with questions about the budget proposal. The survey included questions about the GSA conference and changes to the AVPL stipend. 

The survey also included a question about using union dues to cover some of the associate director and finance manager’s salaries for their assistance with union-related work. The other option in the survey was to “hire entirely new staff dedicated to union matters.”

Ping Lam Ip and Andrea DeKeseredy, PhD students in the department of sociology at the U of A, sent an email to the GSA and others outlining their concerns with the survey. Ip and DeKeseredy requested the GSA retract the survey. On April 25, the GSA sent a second email with the survey to graduate students.

The email stated that they appreciated the effort to consult students, but they “found that the survey is unacceptably biased and contains misleading and selectively incomplete claims and information.”

Ip and DeKeseredy took issue with the use of “leading questions.” According to the email, the three questions provided background information for the changes and an argument in favour of them. 

“This means the survey is not just gathering opinions from students, it is actively persuading them to support the items,” Ip and DeKeseredy wrote.

“Most, if not all, statements and questions” included misleading or incomplete information according to Ip and DeKeseredy

The survey stated the use of union dues to pay for part of the associate director and finance manager’s salaries would be to “avoid increasing membership fees beyond the standard [Consumer Price Index (CPI)] 2.2 [per cent].” 

The alternative of hiring entirely new staff for union-related matters “would likely necessitate a further increase in union dues.”

Ip and DeKeseredy’s email said “this threat presents a false dilemma to students.”

The pair also claimed that “most, if not all, statements and questions” included misleading and incomplete information.

Lamarche also requested a formal correction to be issued. 

All three individuals took issue with the claim the reduction in the AVPL’s stipend would allow the GSA to reallocate those funds to the GSA strike fund.

“This would help ensure we’re better prepared for future bargaining,” the survey stated. 

Lamarche claimed in his email that the GSA does not have a strike fund. Additionally, Lamarche said the strike fund doesn’t go towards bargaining, rather it is reserved for a strike. The GSA’s latest budget proposal did not include a line for a strike fund.

At the April 9 meeting, Arshad said there is about $100,000 in the GSA’s strike fund, but the GSA just doesn’t have an explicit strike fund due to information not being passed along year-to-year.

Arshad told The Gateway the survey has received more than 200 responses.

“With that level of engagement, withdrawing it because a handful of people dislike its framing would be undemocratic,” Arshad explained.

“I don’t see how one can argue that the current survey can lead to misinformed decisions,” Arshad said.

He clarified that the survey is not meant to alter the budget proposal that is before the GSA Council.

“It is a temperature-check, nothing more,” Arshad said.