Two former members of the Slippery Rock University President’s Cabinet allege the institution was misrepresenting financial data to the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE).

Despite PASSHE’s recent forensic review — which PASSHE’s director of media relations Kevin Hensil said found no evidence to support a complaint regarding a financial matter — Abbey Zink and Amir Mohammadi say they stand by the concerns they raised as former members of the cabinet.

“And I am asking for the release of the document (forensic review) publicly,” said Mohammadi, the university’s former senior vice president for administration, global engagement and economic development, and chief innovation officer.

He confirmed Friday that he stands by the initial allegations he made in February, via email and an attached letter that were shared with the Butler Eagle.

Zink, former SRU provost and vice president of academic affairs, also shared a statement Friday with the Butler Eagle, offering context around her termination from the president’s cabinet on April 4 and a month’s worth of events that followed.

“Many have asked why I haven’t said more about this situation over the last month,” Zink said. “Regretfully and reluctantly, we’ve reached a point where I now must provide context to try to minimize the damage to my professional reputation, which I’ve worked hard to build over decades.”

She also confirmed in a phone call that she holds the same concerns expressed in Mohammadi’s letter regarding the financial instability of the institution.

According to an article in “The Rocket,” SRU’s student newspaper, campus staff and faculty were informed via email April 20 that Mohammadi’s position was abolished. The PASSHE review results were received by the university that same day, the newspaper reported.

In Mohammadi’s email — addressed to Council of Trustee members, President William Behre and Chancellor Dan Greenstein — the former SRU employee said he’d been contemplating expressing his concerns about the financial instability of the university.

“I have been pondering for quite some time the attached letter; however, my last meeting with Dr. Behre on Thursday, Feb. 17, made me finally come to the realization, regrettably, that I must — in the best interest of the University — send it,” Mohammadi said.

“The attached letter details multiple examples of concealment and lack of transparency,” he later said in the email.

Mohammadi said SRU’s Comprehensive Planning Process (CPP) documents and the cost of the upcoming engineering program were his major concerns. According to him, the university cannot afford the new program and had been searching for solutions that would allow it to continue.

“We have avoided making tough decisions for the past four years. Now, coupled with the misleading information about engineering, we’re going to be pushed off the cliff financially and ruin our reputation,” he said.

In Zink’s statement, she echoed concerns for engineering students and the future of the program at the university. She specifically cites the lack of appropriate lab space on campus.

“Some of my concerns include whether mechanical and civil engineering students, who pay an extra fee for engineering courses, will get the labs and other support that they need to compete effectively in the workplace,” she said.

Zink also mentioned a lack of transparency in budget numbers presented to PASSHE.

“I voiced concerns about the accuracy of critical numbers presented to PASSHE and the Council of Trustees used for decision-making and planning,” she said.

In a document attached to Mohommadi’s initial February email, titled “SRU Financial Concerns Letter,” Mohammadi said facts and costs were concealed from the trustees in certain budget reporting and the CPP.

“The future budget deficits are in the millions, and on top of that, the current waste of resources is also in the millions,” he said.

At Tuesday’s Council of Trustees Finance and Administrative Affairs Committee meeting, Carrie Birckbichler, vice president for finance and administration, presented three budget scenarios that confirm possible deficits.

The first presented scenario showed a potential deficit of $2.33 million, the second plan assumes one of $5.8 million and the final “worst-case scenario,” according to Birckbichler, showed a potential deficit of $7.52 million.

Birckbichler added that for most schools, a deficit is common, as enrollment is dropping nationwide.

In his initial letter, Mohammadi also criticized what he described as the university leaders’ lack of a long-term financial strategy.

“Current strategies govern these decisions based on the premise of ‘You don’t have to know where you are going, as long as you are on your way,’” he said.

When the engineering program was introduced, Mohammadi said he refused to sign PASSHE documents as he believed budget numbers were not accurately presented. According to him, Behre signed the documents, which would be a violation of PASSHE rules.

Mohammadi said, in addition, SRU reserves were being heavily spent, and he asked that the issues presented be investigated.

Kevin Hensil, director of media relations at PASSHE, said in an email Friday that a collaborative review was conducted as a result of a misunderstanding about SRU’s financial and CPP documents.

“That collaborative review process worked as designed, and the miscommunication with SRU was addressed,” he said. “Following that normal process, the Office of the Chancellor received a complaint regarding SRU finances connected to a personnel matter.

“The Office of the Chancellor engaged an outside firm to review the issue and that firm found no evidence to support the allegation.”

The forensic review’s results have not been made public.

Hensil said out of respect for employee privacy, personnel matters are not shared beyond the PASSHE office.

According to previous reports, Hensil said each PASSHE school undergoes an annual audit wherein auditors aim to “obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free from material misstatement.”

“The Rocket” reported in its April 29 article about the allegations that it had filed Right to Know requests for the CPPs of other universities and SRU’s forensic review.

According to a Rocket editor, the requests were only partially approved.

“We received CPPs from other universities for 2020 and 2021, but were denied the results of the forensic review,” he said.

According to Behre following a finance and administrative affairs committee meeting, only Greenstein, the chancellor, has seen the results of the PASSHE review.

“I haven’t even seen it,” Behre said. “To my knowledge, it will not be made public.”

Zink’s removal from SRU’s provost position was announced April 4, with an announcement that Michael Zieg would serve as acting provost.

It was unclear — and remains unclear — as to whether or not she is yet an SRU employee, Zink said in her statement Friday. She said her employment status at SRU shouldn’t be debatable, given she was hired as a tenured professor of English in 2019.

“Whether I am a Slippery Rock University employee is, unfortunately, a matter of dispute, although it shouldn’t be,” she said.

Her statement claims the SRU English department has several open positions, and that Zink should have assumed a tenured position following her removal from the provost role.

“The SRU administration, for whatever reason, has a different perspective,” she said.

Zink said her removal was in “retaliation” for bringing to light serious issues.

“I was removed as provost because I did my job and lived my mantra: ‘Students first. Always.’ I value transparency, integrity and accountability above all else,” she said.

“To put it bluntly: I was removed as provost as retaliation for blowing the whistle and voicing serious concerns on behalf of students, faculty and staff, as was my duty.”

Zink called the university administration “stewards of public funds and public trust” and said that the lack of honesty concerns her.

Zink ended her statement by saying her removal was unexpected given a review she received in February. The way the situation was handled by the university administration, as well as PASSHE, could harm her future career, she said.

“I only can speculate that harming the professional reputation I’ve built over the decades was the intended goal,” she said. “Unfortunately, the actions taken against me may also serve to silence others in the university community.”

PASSHE was not immediately available to comment in reaction to Zink’s statement.