Key Union and Faculty Concerns: FY26/27 KPU Budget

Dear KFA Colleagues,

This week, the University is seeking Board approval of the FY26–27 budget. That budget includes permanent reductions to teaching capacity and is being advanced in January rather than the established March timeline which impairs proper process, transparency, and consultation.

Consultation with the KFA is required under the Collective Agreement, but began only five business days before the scheduled Board vote, and we were explicitly told that the budget was already largely set and not open to substantive change.

That is not consultation.

Because these decisions are permanent and shape workloads, class sizes, program delivery, and student access for years to come, we have formally requested that the Board table the FY26–27 budget until March. The formal letter outlining this request, sent to the President and the Board Chair, is attached.

In support of this request, we have compiled a summary of key concerns raised by faculty across multiple areas. This summary reflects what we have heard to date.

Summary of key faculty concerns to date:

• The budget lacks transparency and accountability, including clear links between financial decisions and institutional strategy.
• It embeds inaccuracies and year-over-year risks, including unexplained variances and assumptions.
• It does not clearly distinguish between faculty, administrative, CPS, and other categories of expenditure, making meaningful analysis impossible.
• It includes unexplained issues, such as the discrepancy between faculty salary actuals and claims of “underutilization,” and an increased contingency coinciding with reductions to faculty salaries.
• It disconnects financial decisions from KPU’s statutory mandate as a teaching-focused public institution.
• It does not account for or situate itself within the ongoing provincial post-secondary system review.
• It does not visibly reflect new initiatives, including curriculum development, program development, or marketing and promotional efforts to address enrolment and reputational challenges.

More specifically, the budget does not track FY25–26 budget versus FY25–26 actuals or annualized projections, despite major revenue and expense drivers now being known. Presenting only year-over-year budget changes obscures financial performance, embeds risk, and makes it impossible to assess whether the budget reflects a coherent strategy.

If you have additional concerns or points you believe should be added to this summary, please send them by email to president@yourkfa.ca. We will continue to consolidate faculty input and ensure it is reflected accurately and responsibly in our communications.

We are acting deliberately and on the record at this stage of the process. We will keep members informed as this develops.

Best,

Mark Diotte

President, Kwantlen Faculty Association