Quality Money in jeopardy as university’s restructuring plans spark frustration in SLC
By Elaine Liang, March 2 2026—
At the Students’ Legislative Council (SLC) meeting on Feb. 24, President Naomie Bakana and Vice-President Internal Lorraine Ndovi provided updates on the University of Calgary’s pushback against renewing the SU’s Quality Money Program.
For the past 20 years, the Quality Money Program has received approximately $2 million each year from the Board of Governors (BoG) to fund student-directed initiatives that enhance the student experience on campus. These initiatives include mental health initiatives, upgrading prayer spaces, building collaborative spaces like the Q Centre and expanded academic opportunities through bursary programs.
The program is reviewed every three years by the BoG to ensure continued commitment from the university. This renewal year, however, the renewal has been met with strong pushback.
“[The Quality Money Program has] been running so great for the past 20-plus years. Why is this year different?” said Bakana.
Conflicting messages on funding
Bakana highlighted confusion surrounding funding for this year’s Quality Money projects.
“When we [reached] out to the university to [ask]…about what the funding allocation is for this year’s project, [the university] said [the SU won’t] have funding…and [the university has] already expended all of [their] funds for Quality Money,” said Bakana.
However, she said the BoG communicated a different message.
“When the SU went to the Board of Governors, it was confirmed that we would be getting funding for this year and this would be the last year for funding,” said Bakana.
“If we’re not supposed to be receiving funding for the Quality Money projects, then why is the Board of Governors reaching out to [the SU to] say [they] need the list of the pre-approved projects?”, she added.
Bakana also noted that members of the university’s executive leadership team have submitted letters of support and agreed to be project holders.
“If I were to give my personal opinion … the university just truly doesn’t understand how Quality Money works, especially since the Provost team is fairly new and they weren’t around when Quality Money was renewed three years ago,” said Bakana.
“That’s problem number one … problem number two … the university said that Quality Money, as we know it, no longer exists … we need to reimagine what the process looks like” she continued. “The university believes that the funding pillars that we have are not reflective enough of students’ greatest needs, which is very rich because we are the student representative body.”
The current Quality Money funding pillars are quality of education, quality of student life, and affordability and accessibility. For projects to be approved, they must be aligned with at least one of these pillars.
University proposes to replace current program
After Bakana’s presentation, Ndovi provided further details on the university’s proposal.
According to Ndovi, the university has proposed replacing the current Quality Money Program with the Student Experience Quality Program (SEQP).
Under the proposal, the SEQP would receive an annual fund of $2.6 million to be allocated by the Provost and Vice-President (Academic), Sandra Davidson, to enhance the student experience.
The university claimed their proposal was based on student survey feedback. According to Ndovi, no demographic details about respondents were provided.
If implemented, the SEQP would operate with an advisory Student Experience Working Group, though final decision-making authority would remain with the Provost.
“This group is strictly advisory, so they don’t really have any real say,” said Ndovi. “[An] issue…is the fact that there are [no] Students-at-Large being included…which is one of the biggest strengths of Quality Money as it currently is.”
Currently, the Students-at-Large sit on the Quality Money Committee to represent the needs and interests of the student population when reviewing and approving Quality Money project submissions.
According to Ndovi, the annual $2.6 million fund would be divided into four funding pillars: $500,000 toward student financial support, particularly in bursaries and scholarships; $1.5 million toward renovations and improvements of learning spaces; $500,000 to support extra- and co-curricular placements for students; and $150,000 between the SU and the Graduate Students’ Association (GSA) to enhance campus life.
Ndovi raised concerns about each of the proposed pillars, beginning with the proposed increase in affordability through the expansion of bursaries and scholarships.
“[This] is really a band-aid solution to a bigger problem, which is an affordability crisis,” said Ndovi. “Bursaries and scholarships will not solve a wider affordability crisis … with the way the university administers emergency financial aid … students who are in bad financial standing with the university are unable to seek a lot of their supports because they have a hold on their myUCalgary account … [it] fails to take into consideration some of the students who are most in dire need.”
Ndovi also criticized the renovations pillar, which makes up the majority of the annual fund, arguing it fails to account for other aspects of the student learning experience and limits who can participate in project submissions.
“Another thing about this program is that it doesn’t allow just anybody to submit a project. The project submissions need to be internal. The university [will] only [allow] their own people to submit projects,” she said. “Not only are Students-at-Large not involved in the decision making process, [but] they’re also not involved in the submission of the bigger projects for these kinds of renovations or improvements to learning spaces.”
Ndovi then criticized the $500,000 allocated to supporting extra- and co-curricular placements, noting that some roles are unpaid or underpaid.
The final $150,000 for enhancing campus life would allocate $100,000 to the SU and $50,000 to the GSA.
“The university said … you folks at the Students’ Union would not have to worry about reporting too much to us because it’s just small amounts of money … so that students can have their little initiatives as well,” she said.
“[The university] said up to … $2,000 per grant … for [the SU] to adjudicate … for student-organized social, cultural, wellness and community-building events,” said Ndovi. “[The university states] that … it retains a tangible component of the former [Quality Money] practice by supporting one-time small student-led activities without onerous reporting or project delays, which just demonstrates a blatant misunderstanding of Quality Money’s original purpose. It blatantly disrespects the spirit of Quality Money … how it works or what it goes towards.”
Bakana added that the university cited 1,700 survey responses as evidence of understanding students’ needs. However, SU surveys receive more responses.
“The annual survey that we just concluded received over 1,800 responses. The Mac Hall survey that we did last year received over 4,000 responses, and even so, the university believes that they are the student whisperers,” said Bakana. “They believe that they know better than the students themselves.”
Bakana and Ndovi will meet with university representatives on March 10 to continue discussions surrounding the future of the Quality Money Program.
“Quite frankly, if [the university] decides ‘yes, this is what we’re going to do,’ [then Ndovi and I] are going to drag [them],” said Bakana.
Faculty rRepresentatives raise concerns
Following the presentation, the floor was opened to SLC councillors.
Werklund School of Education Representative Sarah Yee asked for clarification on the collaboration between the SU and the university under the proposed SEQP.
“There isn’t really any collaboration because [the university says] that we’re going to have … an advisory working group, but the Provost has the final say on what projects actually get processed,” responded Bakana.
Schulich School of Engineering Representative Emmanuel Fasesan asked about the university’s motivation for their sudden push for change in the Quality Money program.
“What we were told was that the team around the table right now [is] not the team around the table years ago,” said Bakana. “[The university] wants to institutionalise it so [the SU doesn’t] have to go to the Board of Governors anymore.”
Ndovi added that the university wants more of a say in the decision-making process in Quality Money project approval and is concerned that some projects allegedly circumvent internal processes.
“Part of the university’s grievances with the current Quality Money as it stands, is that people are bringing projects forward and apparently, it’s circumventing their internal processes because not everybody who is supposed to know about certain projects knows about them, and then it causes a lot of turmoil,” said Ndovi.
Faculty of Arts Representative Simchah Atanda criticized the SEQP’s funding pillars, arguing that $1.5 million toward renovations and limiting SU project grants to $2,000 will not be sufficient to complete projects.
“We are in very dangerous waters right now … I concur with my fellow executives and councillors to say that some dragging is required [and] I think, a lot more, because this particular [U of C] leadership regime that’s going on right now is very Trumpian, and it seems that they don’t want the Supreme Court, which is the Board of Governors, to even be involved in the process,” said Atanda.
“[The university doesn’t] want to go to the Board of Governors because they want to have ultimate control of what happens in the university,” he said.
“It’s discouraging to know that it’s not just our politicians down south and in Edmonton, but also [the university’s Senior Leadership Team] and [Executive Leadership Team] who like to play dirty and become very Trumpian,” he said.
After hearing councillors’ concerns, Bakana restated her frustration.
“We are not taking this sitting down. It is very frustrating to reason with unreasonable people,” she said.
Further updates are expected following the March 10 meeting.
For more information on upcoming SLC meetings and agendas, visit the SU website.