text: “Substantial amounts of money have been used on these consultants, over $4 million in two years,” Guirguis said. “We are told there is no money in the budget for pay raises. I know professors who do not have phones in their office because of the budget cuts. We are told not to print our syllabi because there is no money for copy paper. But we have over $4 million in the budget for outside consultants.”
  “Our primary concerns are the lack of transparency and the lack of shared governance,” Guirguis said. “A few years ago, when the faculty Senate asked Dr. Shipley about the substantial spending on consultants, she said, and I quote, “consultants are expensive but we use them because they are necessary and they save us money. But we can’t afford to use all these consultants anymore.”
  Guirguis added that this contradictory statement implies that consultants are not necessary after all.
  Guirguis said that a senior senator had gone to Shipley asking for information on the money spent on consultants and received a large amount of accounting paperwork that Guirguis deems “useless and inscrutable.” Guirguis also included documents in his presentation from Shipley showcasing different expenditures on outside consultants, highlighting that there was no column for fees spent on the consultants.
  “If the president believes these consultants to be such a wonderful investment, why is that investment not shared with us?” he asked.
  Guirguis highlighted a conversation in which professor of biology Dr. Carl Bell asked Shipley directly how much money was being spent on consultants and received the reply “as little as possible.”
  Guirguis stated that in the process of finding a new director of admissions, a position with a $90,000 salary, administration hired a firm for $120,000 to fill the position temporarily. After years of waiting, full professors received an equity adjustment of $1,000 and yet we can afford to spend an extra $30,000 on consultants as if it’s small change?” asked Guirguis.
  “This FOIA request would become moot if it was about a person, but it is not,” said Guirguis in conclusion. “This is about a system in place. It is about structural change and reform. It is about the future, not the past.”
  Well, did the Faculty Senate file their FOIA request? If so, then what was the administration’s response, and if not, why not?