This article was written in response to an op-ed published in the Charlatan Dec. 1, 2020 titled “Opinion: Mandating FundQi was a mistake—here’s how to fix it” by Matt Gagné, president of the Carleton Academic Student Government.
Kathleen Weary is the current president of the Carleton University Students’ Association.
When elected president of the Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA), I made a vow to be transparent and open in every area of my work with the union. For this reason, I feel it is important to respond when someone asserts that my team and I are doing the opposite.
I would like to shed light on the arguments made in the Charlatan’s recently published op-ed on FundQi’s alleged affiliation with CUSA, as well as the organization’s relationship with student levies.
The first inaccurate and misleading aspect of the article is its headline. CUSA did not “mandate” the $9.99 per-semester fee associated with FundQi, and had no legal ability to do so upon its introduction as a levy.
FundQi is its own entity and is fully responsible for its own operations. Additionally, the decision for it to be a service available to Carleton students was made by those who voted in last January’s referendum, and the organization that proposed this referendum was FundQi itself.
Of course, CUSA council did vote to allow the referendum to take place, as CUSA’s bylaws say every person or group on campus must go to council to seek a referendum if they wish to propose something like a new student levy on behalf of their organization (CUSA Bylaw 4.1).
However, CUSA did not introduce the fee, and we did not decide how it is collected. We also did not dictate how opting out of the program would take place, as we do not have the power to do so. FundQi is completely independent and responsible for its relationship with the university and students, and a move to make the system an opt-in process—rather than an opt-out process—was up to the company itself.
The author of the op-ed took a big leap when he wrote, “CUSA failed to properly approach the issue of making FundQi eligible for opt-out inquiry—making it an almost mandatory fee through the union’s lack of transparency.” This is false. Even though we have no legal footing to make changes, we insisted FundQi work with the university to make it an automatic opt-out like the process that occurred during the Student Choice Initiative. When the university said they could not do this in the short time frame and during a pandemic, we asked that they consider it for next year and insisted that FundQi provide a process that was more efficient. Meanwhile, FundQi has increased the efficiency of their opt-out process for the winter semester, by administering refunds through e-transfer, rather than physical cheques.
When we saw that students were agitated about not getting their refunds (and understandably so), we lobbied the university to expedite them. When it comes to receiving fees, all student groups, CUSA included, are at the mercy of the university, which sends fees after the last date of withdrawal and when it concludes its accounting. Fees, for all groups, usually arrive mid-November—meaning it would not have been possible to distribute refunds until then.
The author asserts we weren’t transparent. It is likely that he never visited the website we created months ago to help students through this process.
We have also communicated in emails and meeting minutes that fees are not to be expected until November. These details have also been communicated via FundQi’s social media, as CUSA is not an outlet for FundQi’s media updates.
Additionally, when the FundQi referendum passed, we identified that it was a sizable fee and that measures needed to be in place to protect students. We had to work within the exact wording of the referendum. To remind the author of the question:
“Do you agree with the addition of a levy fee of $9.99 per semester which will grant Carleton students the opportunity to access FundQi.ca’s annual services?
This fee can be opted out upon inquiry.”
The author of the op-ed asserts we did very little to address students’ concerns around FundQi, which is also false. Upon hearing students’ concerns, I got straight to work. I met with my team and the student groups that reached out to me and we agreed to work with the university to create resources to not only explain how ancillary fees (such as FundQi) are spent, but when and how to opt out of them.
I have since met with Carleton administration to discuss FundQi’s accountability to students. Carleton agreed to share information on ancillary fees and opt-out options via their channels.
I also met with the FundQi executives and urged them to be more transparent and to extend the opt-out period for the winter 2021 semester, which they agreed to extend from Jan. 19 to Jan. 31.
Once the student body passes a referendum, CUSA has limited authority. However, in the case of FundQi, we recognized the fee was sizable and there was a need to make sure the organization stayed active. To protect present and future students, the 2019-20 CUSA executives insisted FundQi sign an agreement regarding its responsibilities to Carleton students. FundQi had no legal obligation to do so and could have declined, but agreed to sign the following agreement regardless. This agreement will be made available on the CUSA website as soon as possible.
“1. FundQi agrees to bear the responsibility to organize and maintain the opt-out process on their own website. As stated in the referendum question students will be allowed to opt-out upon inquiry.
- Commencing on June 1st, 2021 FundQi will provide financial statements, a statement of activity from the year including how many students accessed the service, the value in funding received by Carleton students, and the potential number of students reached by FundQi’s engagement efforts.
- FundQi agrees to abide by all applicable university policies as an external service provider, which can be found at: https://carleton.ca/secretariat/policies/.
- Changes to this agreement can be amended by a written agreement duly executed by all parties.
- A removal of the FundQi levy will require the affirmative vote of Carleton students through a referendum in accordance with CUSA and university bylaws.”
Alongside the points already addressed, one line in the op-ed struck me as particularly alarming: “For a concerningly long time, CUSA has relied on ancillary funding to prop up many of their on-campus institutions.”
Let me be clear. CUSA is a flow-through for fees that have been adopted over the years by the student body. We don’t govern them, we don’t make a single profit off of them, and we certainly don’t prop up self-serving institutions with them.
CUSA is merely responsible for distributing this money, administratively, from the university to certain on-campus organizations. From past referendums, students contribute to things like the Interval House, a shelter for women and children experiencing abuse, and the World Food Program—both of which one can find on their tuition statements before and after paying.
I agree that FundQi’s fee is sizable, and that FundQi is an on-campus service that needs to fulfill its promises to students. As fellow students, my team and I understand that every dollar counts for students, especially in these difficult times, as evidenced in our Hardship Fund. As an executive team, our job is to support students, listen, and respect students’ right to choose. If a second FundQi referendum occurs, we will support whatever decision is made by the student body, as we have for any past referendum.
I remain committed to the utmost level of transparency with students and will continue to ensure we are well-informed about ancillary fees. As a fellow student, I hear you. Money matters.
Featured graphic from file.
