In the Gavilan College Measure E performance audit for the year ending June 30, one question has not been adequately answered: How did the auditors conclude that Gavilan College was in compliance with Prop. 39 and that they expended the bond funds only for the authorized and specific projects contained in the full text ballot proposition that was presented to the voters March 2, 2004?
I believe the answer is quite simple. The South Bay Public Safety Training Consortium (police academy) was conveniently omitted from the Measure E projects list that was provided to auditors.
Why was this very important information withheld from the auditors? I believe that Gavilan College President Steve Kinsella and the board knew that if auditors had received this important information they would clearly see that the police academy at the satellite site in Coyote Valley was not on the list of specific projects in the ballot proposition approved by voters in March 2004.
In fact, the auditors would also see that this project did not appear anywhere in the bond. With this information the auditors would have to conclude that Gavilan College was not in compliance with Prop. 39 because Measure E bond funds were used on a project that was not approved by voters.
Another question that needs answering is: Can critical information be withheld from the auditors to get the desired results from the auditors? Is this fair to the auditors and the public?
More important: Is withholding critical information from the auditors to obtain an invalid audit legal? I do not believe this would be legal. The actions of the Gavilan College board and Mr. Kinsella need to be investigated.
Aurelio Zuniga is a Hollister resident.
