By: Corbett Gildersleve, Project Assistant

The Simon Fraser Student Society (SFSS) held its annual general meeting on October 29, where undergrads discussed and voted on two bylaw proposals put forth by the SFSS. Both proposals passed, including the “Financial Responsibility and Investment Restrictions” bylaw, which aims to restrict investments for “long-term financial sustainability.” It has some good ideas overall, but the wording for certain clauses will cause problems. 

Bylaws define things like who the members and directors are, and what powers they have. Changes to bylaws can only be approved by members either through a referendum or at a general meeting. Non-profits like the SFSS also have policies, which are rules that Council can change on their own. They are used to guide the organization, and the SFSS has numerous policy documents that help set rules around its finances, member services, student issues and other day-to-day operations. 

The SFSS has a history of turning large budget deficits into a surplus by the end of the year, as shown by the audited financial statements. For instance, in 2017, the SFSS sold The Highland Pub and MBC cafeteria space back to SFU. In other years, there was underspending, especially between 2020 and 2022. It’s only been in the last few years that the final audit has been financially concerning. So, it’s no surprise the Council has recommended placing some restrictions on budget deficits. 

One clause says, “The Society shall not approve an annual operating budget that projects an operational deficit exceeding 20% of the Society’s projected annual revenue.” On the surface, it’s a good thing to put a constraint on how much of a deficit the Council can approve. The issue is that it refers to “annual revenue,” which is an ambiguous term. Annual revenue includes the General Fund, Build SFU Fund, Space Expansion Fund, and the Health Plan Fund. In the 2023–24 fiscal year, annual revenue totalled over $16 million. A 20% deficit would be over $3 million, which is significantly larger than any of the past operating budget deficits. I assume the SFSS meant 20% of their projected operating budget, which would be around $3 million according to their 2025–26 budget. A 20% deficit buffer would be around $600,000, which isn’t much different than most of SFSS’ projected operational budget deficits historically. 

Another concern is what happens if the Council approves a budget deficit that exceeds 20%? Clause 3b says, “Any deficit exceeding this limit must require approval by two-thirds of Council and ratification by the membership at the next general meeting.” This can be interpreted in two ways: either that two-thirds of Council members approve the new budget in the summer term, and in the fall, members approve it at the AGM, or that two-thirds of Council and the regular membership have to approve it at the AGM. The SFSS doesn’t have the best track record of reaching quorum at its AGMs, with only five in the last 10 years reaching quorum. Last year’s is being challenged at the Civil Resolution Tribunal. If Council approves a budget similar to this year’s but the AGM doesn’t reach quorum, would the SFSS be breaking its bylaws? If so, what kind of legal liability would they be in?

Another clause says, “The Society shall maintain fiscal practices that prioritize student activities, ensuring that costs allocated to student union funding, club funding, constituency group activities, and Council committees constitute at least 30% of revenue in the Operational Fund budget.” This is a good thing to prioritize funds towards. I have a few questions, though, like what is the Operational Fund? The SFSS’ audited financial statements have a General Fund and the SFSS has an operating budget, but those two things don’t completely match. 

To be technical (the best kind of picky), almost anything the SFSS does would be considered operations, including costs for the SUB, buying furniture for student union common rooms, and wages for student-facing staff. So, if the Operating Fund continues to be at $16 million, 30% of that would be just under $5 million. Will they start putting that towards “student union funding, club funding, constituency group activities, and council committees?” I don’t think so, because much of that revenue has to be spent on specific things like the health plan, the SUB, and other areas.

However, again, if by operating fund they meant operating budget, which is around $3 million, 30% of that is $900,000. Looking at the 2025–26 operating budget and totaling up the student union and club funding, constituency group activities, and council committees, that works out to be around $1,422,147 assuming you’re not counting staff costs. If you are, then it’s well over the $900,000 mark. It’s hard to tell now because the SFSS moved a bunch of staff costs into one Human Resources line. Not very clear or transparent. 

Finally, clause 7 says, “Council shall seek to maintain diversified revenue streams such that no more than 85% of total annual revenue derives from mandatory student fees.” Because it says total revenue, again, we’re talking $16 million. How much is 15%? Just under $3 million. Good luck, future Council members. Or not, because it says, “Council shall seek to maintain diversified revenue streams,” and that’s not enforceable by the members. Council can just say “Oh, we tried, but couldn’t quite maintain it.” 

When it comes to bylaws and money, it needs to be crystal clear or else the Society is inviting legal challenges from its members. Many of these clauses are more likely to be found in a strategic plan or policy. Other questions are: Where did these numbers come from? Why 85% of mandatory fees? Currently, almost all SFSS revenue comes from mandatory student fees. Is this even achievable and if so, where’s the report from senior staff with a plan? Since these bylaws have been passed, they will significantly restructure the SFSS and I’m concerned that there’s no plan in place.