After reading the article in the Free Lance dated Dec. 10 about the groundbreaking at the Coyote Valley site and the use of bond funds to set up the police academy, it raised an interesting question.
Will the auditors conclude that Gavilan College was in compliance with Prop. 39 for the F.Y. 2014-15 budget? Will they find that they expended bond funds only for the authorized and specific projects contained in the full text ballot proposition that was presented to the voters on March 2?
In doing some research to compare bond language as it relates to police training facilities, I chose the College of the Desert and Riverside Community College. The language in their bonds was specific and precise. Police training facility projects were clearly identified and specified as required by Prop. 39.
In the Gavilan College Measure E bond, police training facilities are not mentioned. In fact, in the full text ballot proposition that was presented to the voters, the words “police”, “administration of justice”, “police training facilities” and “academy” are non-existent in the entire bond document’s language.
Clearly the police academy at the Coyote Valley site was never on the list of specific projects contained in the bond. Prop. 39 states that before they vote, voters will be provided with the list of specific projects that their bond money will be used for. Also under Prop. 39, identifying projects specifically is mandatory.
In closing, I would like to make one thing perfectly clear. I am not opposed to having a police academy at the Coyote Valley site. Police academies provide many essential services in our communities. However, President Steve Kinsella and the trustees must be held accountable. Spending Measure E bond funds on a project that was never included as a specific project in the bond is wrong, and is a clear violation of Prop. 39. Voters must insist that they adhere and abide by the law. In my opinion, that has not happened.
Aurelio Zuniga, Hollister
