FY27 Budget Impacts on KFA Members

Dear Colleagues,

Your Union has become aware that more layoff announcements are on the horizon, and while we are now engaging the Employer in the conversations mandated by Article 7 of our Collective Agreement (Layoff and Recall—Regular Faculty), we have also become aware that these layoffs were planned by the Employer as early as May 2025. This omission is compounded by irregularities in the handling of the 2026/27 budget as well as problems with the budget itself.

Here is an overview of our concerns:

Transparency

• The Employer plans to cut 43% of faculty salary for developmental education (Qualifying, Upgrading, and ELST), including elimination of developmental offerings in Math and Science. However, none of these cuts are necessary. The KFA received confirmation from the Ministry that KPU will receive funding to cover the offerings currently being delivered.  
• Normally, the University budget is before the Board in the March meeting for approval. This year, it was before the Board in January, despite objections from Board members. We believe that the timing of the budget was intended to circumvent consultation and debate of the budget. Furthermore, it was known that the Board Vice-Chair and the University President would be absent, and it was known that the vacant faculty representative to Board and vacant student representative seat would be filled in March.
• The KFA had only one one-hour meeting with University Finance five business days before the budget was taken to Board. This meeting was solely to receive information from Finance; none of our questions were answered, and we were unable to provide input on the budget. The KFA has filed a grievance on the failure of the administration to consult with the KFA as is required on both these matters. We believe this grievance will be successful.
• The format of the budget documents is now less transparent than it used to be. Budget documents used to show a detailed breakdown of the budgets for each administrative and academic unit. Now, totals for these units have been amalgamated into one line entries, making it impossible to see how funds are being allocated and how these allocations impact our members.  
• The budget conflates KFA faculty members’ salary with non-bargaining unit employees (contract researchers and CPS non-bargaining unit instructors). As a result, the “faculty” budget line does not indicate the changes to budget allocation for KFA members versus non-union employees. Once again, this makes it difficult for us to discern budgetary impacts on our members as well as changes to non-bargaining unit work. The Employer has not responded to KFA requests to provide a breakdown of these different categories except to say, “salary related to instruction is not presented this way.” 
• The University community typically receives a report on actuals shortly after the end of the fiscal year. However, the KFA has been told by the Employer that actuals will not be available until sometime after June 24th. This will impede our ability to effectively advocate for faculty.

Concerning Elements

• $3.8 million in direct faculty salary reductions were approved for FY26, but $6.4 million in faculty salary reductions have been enacted—nearly double the amount approved. The Union has repeatedly warned the Employer that the cuts exceeded the approved amount, but they have ignored these concerns.
• The FY27 budget is not based on actuals but on draft-to-draft-to-draft projections. This is significant because it leads to the compounding of errors. The FY26 budget was based on the FY25 draft budget, not actuals. The FY27 budget was based on the FY26 draft (which was itself based on a draft). The FY26 actuals are going to be well out of line with the FY26 draft, and so the draft budget for FY27 is based not on facts but on a series of dubious projections, and it certainly will not be accurate. 
• The consequences: The projected faculty layoffs are not based on facts or observed real necessity. FY25 actual figure for faculty salary was $92.392M. The real reduction for FY26 was $6.411M, not $3.8M, so actual salary for FY26 will be significantly lower than what is shown in the draft. So, for FY26 draft, we are starting at an already inflated figure, and the actual faculty salary figure is actually much less. The draft FY27 budget starts out with an expense for faculty salary that is artificially inflated above the true figure, so the “correction” in the form of cuts to faculty is far too high. We estimate that the true total faculty salary line (which we can all check when we eventually see actuals for FY26) for FY27 will be ~$74M or less, not ~$80M.
• A concerning line in the budget summary, called “budget rightsizing contracted staffing” totals about $13M. When we inquired about this line, the Employer explained it represents funds “reserved for non-regular faculty salary but not spent.” In other words, a significant sum was allocated to non-regular faculty salary while regular faculty were being laid off. None of this money was spent to prevent the layoff of regular faculty. We suspect that as a result of the budget rightsizing contracted staffing” amount, there likely will be a significant total surplus for FY26, well over the $5M originally projected by the CFO during the “Listening Tour.”
• The Human Resources Database (HRDB), maintained by the BC Government’s Post-Secondary Employers Association (PSEA), shows that “casual” faculty salary at KPU increased from $1.34M in 2024 to $3.02M in 2025. “Casual” is defined as those earning less than $3800 per annum. This is likely CPS non-bargaining unit contracts, suggesting that the Employer is reducing regular faculty work while increasing precarious work for KFA members by increasing non-union instruction.

No Proportionate Cuts to Administration

We have long been concerned about the growing disproportionate ratio of administrators to faculty and students.  

This graph shows the increase in FTE for Admin, Students and Faculty, in terms of a percentage of 2013 numbers. By the year 2024, there was 86.17% more excluded FTE than there was in 2013. By contrast, there was only 13.01% more Faculty FTE than there was in 2013.

This graph is based on the following table drawn from HRDB data:

Based on the admin projections, we estimate faculty FTE will be at maximum ~658 or fewer FTE. At this faculty population, a reduction of at least an additional 50 FTE in admin is necessary to achieve proportionality with faculty reductions. We estimate this would be approximately $8M in salary savings based on average admin salary per FTE.

In Summary

The employment implications of the budget are significant for faculty. There appears to be an intention to reduce regular faculty work while increasing precarious work for KFA members, and to increase precarious work outside of the bargaining unit, and at the same time, to maintain or increase administrative density

We will be exploring these issues further in our meeting tomorrow to discuss faculty confidence in senior administration.

In solidarity,

Diane.