a forensic audit; why not?

It is used to investigate cases of suspected fraud so as to prove or disprove the suspicions. If the suspicions are proven, it is used to identify the persons involved, support the findings by evidence and to present the evidence in an acceptable format in any subsequent disciplinary or criminal proceedings.

A forensic audit searches specifically for situations such as weakness in control, inadequate record keeping, errors, apparently fraudulent transactions and results, improper or unlawful expenditures, unauthorized operations, waste, inefficency or lack of probity.

A forensic audit should offer legal advice; in particular how to deal with the APS/Maes/Modral relationship.

A forensic audit will report findings appropriately and not conceal them in the interests of the perpetrators.

Forward thinking administrators use auditing to prevent fraud by identifying and rectifying situations which could lead to fraud. If forensic audits were a part of a regular audit process; corruption and criminal incompetence would be deterred. A forensic audit prevents corruption far more effeciently (for taxpayers) than it exposes corruption.

Evidence and allegations must trigger investigations by a system that is beyond the undue influence of the accused. It must proceed even against their will.

Such a system would prove to be a significant deterrent to fraud and corruption.

So why not?

Too expensive? If we can afford $80,000 dollars worth of new furniture for the exclusive use of the leadership of the APS in their $12,000,000 apartments in the sky; we can afford a forensic audit of the butts sitting in those chairs.

So why not?

There is no good reason why not. There is no defense. If there were, the folks who are going to get creamed by the audit, would offer it in order to save themselves and would no longer be compelled to stonewall their response.

There is only a bad reason why not.

One cannot end corruption except by exposing it.
One cannot expose corruption except by exposing the corrupt.
One cannot expose the corrupt without the ending their careers, and worse.

The corrupt will not accept those consequences willingly,
so they will not accept their exposure, and
they will not accept the exposure of corruption, and
they will not accept a forensic audit.

Paula Maes and the Modral will not accept an audit.
Robert Lucero will not accept an audit;
nor will anyone else on the school board.
Beth Everitt, Tom Savage will not accept an audit;
nor will any other senior APS administrator.

No one intends to accept an audit.

If an audit is conducted,
it will be against the will of the leadership of the APS.

By people who show up for a board meeting and demand an end to the stonewalling.

It will take a lot of people and they will not enjoy the support of the Journal or the Trib.

The leadership of the APS has that privilege.