With a reserve losing value and an admitted lack of internal accountability, this year’s budget raises more questions than it answers
The University of Ottawa Students’ Union (UOSU) is the principal representative of undergraduate students on campus. Beyond representation, UOSU executives are salaried full-time to identify and serve the needs of U of O students. This means an annual analysis of their budget is crucial in determining the priorities of those chosen to reflect student values.
UOSU manages a budget of over $7.6 million, excluding Health & Dental revenues. This budget is collected through a series of optional and non-optional levies imposed on students when they pay their tuition each semester. These levies pay for services like the Food Bank, Feminist Resource Centre, and Bike Co-Op, along with businesses like the student-led grocer, PIVIK, and programs like the Emergency Hardship Fund.
UOSU’s commitment to prioritizing funding for social services has been questioned in recent years, especially following their decision to discontinue food bank coverage for graduate students, and the scarce amount of funding allocated to the Emergency Hardship Fund. However, with a surplus of $381,126, questions arise around the necessity of those cuts, and whether the Union should be taking steps to increase its coverage.
That’s a large reserve…
The approved UOSU budget for the 2026-27 includes a surplus of $381,126, $49.771.92 of which comes from PIVIK, UOSU’s student-led grocery store, posting its first-ever financial surplus. This surplus is a result of various factors, including UOSU’s inability to spend certain funds, such as the Pub Levy. The levy accounts for 73.3 per cent of the surplus, at $279,526. These funds are placed into the UOSU reserves, which should be of particular interest to students as its market position continues to decline.
UOSU maintains a reserve of $3,000,020 across ScotiaBank, TD Bank, and Alterna Bank, according to information revealed at the UOSU finance committee’s June 14 meeting. Operations commissioner Zach Lebel said the Union had “invested over $2 million in a savings account so your money doesn’t lose its value” in a video posted to UOSU’s Instagram on July 11, after the budget was passed.
Lebel confirmed that the remaining discrepancy between the amount stated in the June 14 finance committee meeting and the amount invested consists of the accumulated Pub Levy fund and levy funds which had yet to be distributed.
“Obviously, you don’t want to rush into things,” Lebel said when asked about the Union’s plans for the reserve, affirming internal uncertainty as to the future of the organization’s holdings. Lebel emphasized the Union’s commitment to ensuring these funds are allocated towards services which “make [UOSU]more visible on campus.” Lebel then delved into some of the possibilities the Union is considering to make that a reality, such as finally utilizing the Pub Levy.
“We have a pub levy that has been going unused for the last two and a half years,” Lebel said. “That is, in my opinion, completely unacceptable.”
“Do I want a pub on campus? Yes, I support a pub on campus,” Lebel added, citing other successful counterparts. “I’ll take Lakehead, for example. Their campus bar is booming; it is the place to be.”
Lebel also pitched the idea of a UOSU laundromat, which he says would be a critical service on campus, especially after the closure of the last laundromat in Sandy Hill.
“I know [laundry at student] residences [is now] free; however, students who [live] off campus or live in Sandy Hill don’t have access to that,” says Lebel.
Lebel confirmed that at present there are no plans to redirect the available funds in the surplus to other crucial services UOSU offers, such as the Emergency Hardship Fund, despite Lebel clarifying that UOSU can spend unrestricted funds on the program. The Emergency Hardship Fund is currently set at $155,030 and is funded exclusively through a levy collected in only 1 of 3 fiscal semesters; however, on a campus of over 50 thousand students, $150,000 becomes a much less powerful figure, especially in an emergency situation.
UOSU may have to act quicker than anticipated in moving these funds, as Lebel says the money they did invest is “just keeping pace with inflation.” Student money could potentially begin to lose value while held by UOSU if not reinvested into diversified portfolios or tangible student services. UOSU’s plan to play the long game may be actively hindering their ability to deliver services to students.
Where’s the Accountability?
UOSU is entering the 2026-27 without an ombudsperson. Instead, they’ve replaced the position with a chair of the Appeals Committee, who will handle all appeals to UOSU decisions but will no longer be an impartial officer maintaining equity, fairness, and good faith within the organization.
Lebel proposed the motion, which was subsequently seconded by president Elnaz Enayatpour, to replace the ombudsperson position in a July 12 finance committee meeting. It was also agreed upon that the pay of the new position be set at $350 per appeal hearing.
Indigenous student representative Ben Cameron (previously UOSU’s chief electoral officer) noted in this meeting that the previous ombudsperson only handled 11 appeals throughout the course of the last fiscal year. If the Union experienced a similar level of appeals this year, the new cost of the position would be $4,000, significantly less than the previous salary of the ombudsperson and, more importantly, the $12,304.89 figure estimated in the official budget.
When asked if those savings were a consideration while debating this motion, Lebel noted that “It wasn’t financially driven,” adding, “That’s not something that had really crossed my mind.”
Lebel says the rationale behind replacing the position was that “our ombudsperson does not do what a traditional ombudsperson should,” referring to how their ombudsperson position had been reduced to purely processing appeals.
“The ombudsperson should be reviewing systemic issues within the organization, and for the two years we had that ombudsperson, that’s not what was happening at all,” says Lebel.
The Fulcrum asked Lebel what internal efforts were being made to ensure the role of reviewing the systemic issues mentioned was still being fulfilled. He responded: “I think we’re still trying to figure that out, and we are [still] examining where to go from here.”
This implies that the critical role within non-profit organizations such as UOSU to review systemic issues has not been filled for at least two years and won’t be for some time to come.
