The state auditor documented issues the criminal investigation did not resolve.
SAO Management Letter, May 8, 2026 · ARN 1039618 · Evergreen Public Schools · Vancouver, WA
In September 2023, Evergreen Public Schools issued supplemental contracts totaling $31,104 to four members of its bargaining team — including $13,980 to Chief Operations Officer Jenae Gomes — while a teachers' strike was underway. The Vancouver Police Department investigated and found no criminal basis to charge Gomes. The matter, the district declared, was closed.
It was not. The Washington State Auditor's Office accountability audit for fiscal year 2024–25 (ARN 1039618) examined those same contracts. In a Management Letter dated May 8, 2026, the SAO found the district did not have support to show the contracts were approved before employees worked, and documented no evidence that the work performed exceeded the scope of their original employment agreements. The SAO invoked Washington State Constitution Article II § 25, which prohibits extra compensation to public employees after services have already been rendered.
That finding matters beyond the $31,104. During the VPD investigation, district representatives made specific representations to Det. Jay Alie about what prior state audits had established regarding the contracts. The criminal case was closed. The public-record questions were not. This investigation intends to document that record fully.
"We found the District did not have support to show these contracts were approved before the employees worked, nor documentation to demonstrate that the work performed exceeded original contract responsibilities."
This investigation focuses on five specific questions raised by the SAO's May 8, 2026 Management Letter and its relationship to representations made during the now-closed VPD case. Public records requests are outstanding on several items. Research is ongoing.
Public records requests are outstanding for Kaiser engagement documentation and district communications related to the SAO audit response. This page will be updated as records are received.
SAO audit findings are frequently mischaracterized — either dismissed as routine or inflated beyond their scope. Understanding what an accountability audit actually examines, what a Management Letter represents, and why the audit year matters in this specific case is essential context for evaluating the record.
The Washington State Auditor's Office conducts annual accountability audits of school districts to assess compliance with applicable state laws, regulations, and district policies. Auditors select samples of transactions for review — they do not examine every expenditure. A clean audit opinion means the sampled transactions did not reveal material noncompliance in the areas tested. It does not mean all transactions were reviewed or cleared.
A Management Letter is a formal communication from the SAO to district leadership documenting findings that, while not rising to the level of a published audit finding, represent specific areas of concern requiring corrective action. A Management Letter is not a clean bill of health — it is documentation of deficiencies the auditor identified and expects the district to address. The SAO's May 8, 2026 Management Letter explicitly cited Washington State Constitution Article II § 25 in connection with the September 2023 supplemental contracts.
The contracts were issued September 4, 2023. The fiscal year covering that period is FY 2023–24 (September 2023 – August 2024). The SAO conducted an accountability audit of that year (ARN 1036871, published March 24, 2025) and issued a clean opinion. However, that audit's sample selection identified a category described as "supplemental contracts for enrichment activities." That language has been cited as evidence the September 2023 bargaining team contracts were examined and cleared. That is not what it means. That language identifies a sample category — a type of expenditure included in the testing pool. It does not confirm the specific September 2023 contracts were pulled as samples, individually examined, and approved. When the SAO did examine those specific contracts — during the FY 2024–25 audit (ARN 1039618) — it documented the deficiencies described in the May 8, 2026 Management Letter.
A clean audit of the fiscal year in which the contracts were issued is not the same as the auditor examining those contracts and finding them compliant. The FY 2023–24 clean opinion covered the period — it did not confirm the specific transactions. When the SAO examined those transactions specifically, it found problems.
This distinction is material to the representations made to Det. Alie during the VPD investigation and is a primary focus of this investigation.
SAO audit findings are administrative and regulatory in nature — not criminal. The district has defined options in how it responds, each with documented consequences. Understanding those options is part of what this investigation will document.
Moses Lake School District received SAO findings related to federal grant documentation. The SAO's communications manager described the process directly: the district would "work with the state Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction to determine if they have any other documentation to support those costs as they go through a process known as 'audit resolution.'" OSPI placed the district on an improvement plan and required corrective reporting. That is the standard path for unresolved findings.
The SAO tracks unresolved findings and revisits them in subsequent accountability audits. The FY 2025–26 audit will assess whether the district addressed the Management Letter's concerns.
Source: SAO Audit Methodology · ARN 1039618Compliance findings are referred to OSPI for resolution. OSPI works with the district to obtain documentation or corrective action and may place the district on an improvement plan with required reporting.
Source: SAO Communications Manager Adam Wilson, quoted in Washington Examiner, August 2025 · Moses Lake School District precedentUnder RCW 28A.505.120, if a district fails to comply with binding restrictions issued by the Superintendent of Public Instruction, state funding allocations may be withheld pending investigation. Written notice is required before any funds are withheld.
Source: RCW 28A.505.120Under RCW 43.09, when an audit results in findings that a district has failed to comply with requirements — specifically including supplemental contracts issued under RCW 28A.400.200 — the auditor must report those findings to the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Office of Financial Management within ninety days of completing the audit.
Source: RCW 43.09 · RCW 28A.400.200The administrative and regulatory consequences outlined in Section 4 apply to the district as an institution. This section addresses a separate and distinct question: the accuracy of statements made by individuals to a law enforcement officer during an active criminal investigation.
During the VPD investigation of Case 2025-017448, district representatives made specific representations to Det. Jay Alie about what prior state audits had established regarding the September 2023 supplemental contracts. Those representations were part of the documentary record Det. Alie used to reach his conclusions.
The SAO's May 8, 2026 Management Letter — issued after the VPD investigation was closed — documents specific deficiencies in those same contracts that prior audit reviews did not capture. As documented in Section 3, the FY 2023–24 clean audit opinion did not constitute confirmation that those specific contracts were examined and found compliant. A factual discrepancy exists between what the prior audit record actually established and how it was characterized.
Statements made to a law enforcement officer during an active investigation carry different legal weight than public statements. Under Washington law, knowingly providing a false or misleading material statement to a public servant — including a law enforcement officer — can constitute a criminal offense if the statement is reasonably likely to be relied upon in the discharge of official duties. Where disputed statements originated with or were transmitted by legal counsel, they may also raise professional-responsibility questions appropriate for WSBA review.
This section does not assert that any crime was committed or that any ethics violation occurred. It documents that a factual discrepancy exists between representations made to an investigating detective and findings subsequently issued by an independent state agency. Whether that discrepancy is legally or professionally significant — in terms of intent, materiality, and the knowledge of the individuals who made those statements — is a question for the Clark County Prosecutor's Office, VPD, or the WSBA, not for this publication. This section will be updated as the record develops.