📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
Sacramento County Grand Jury
• 2008-2009
Natomas Unified School District “Right Idea, Wrong Price” Issue
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 5 findings
F1
– The Natomas Unified School District Board and Superintendent did not exercise proper oversight of the land acquisition process. Their lack of due diligence reflects an abdication rather than a delegation of oversight responsibilities.
F2
– Obtaining a single appraisal under the protection of attorney client privilege does not allow for full disclosure and transparency of the purchasing process. The appraiser hired and directed by the attorney was provided information based on erroneous facts which were incorporated into the appraisal that was submitted to the Natomas Unified School Board.
F3
– The Superintendent’s solicitation of a contribution from a related party to West Lakeside LLC, for a foundation on whose board the Superintendent sat, during the 48 course of purchasing negotiations, reflects poor judgment. The solicitation lays open the appearance of a “quid pro quo” agreement for purchase of the Natomas land site at an inflated price.
F4
– The attorney retained by the School Board failed in his fiduciary responsibility to make the Natomas School District and Superintendent aware of his past dealings with West Lakeside LLC and AKT Development and the conflict of interest.
F5
–The Assistant Superintendent and the School District’s attorney were involved in instructing the appraiser as to the assumptions that he should use. The appraisal contained false and misleading assumptions which greatly inflated the sales price paid by the Natomas Unified School District. Standard appraisal practices were not followed. The appraiser failed to recognize his obligations to maintain his objectivity and independence.
Recommendations 5
-
R11– The California School Board Association should be invited to conduct training in land acquisition for both the Natomas Unified School District Board and Superintendent.
-
R21 – The School District and Superintendent should always have direct control over the hiring of any appraiser.
-
R3- The Superintendent should be sanctioned by the Natomas Unified School District Board for carrying out such an ill timed solicitation.
-
R4– A complaint should be filed with the California State Bar by the Natomas Unified School District Board against the attorney and his law firm.
-
R5– This matter should be referred to the Sacramento District Attorneys Office and the State Attorney General as well as any other governmental agency for any further investigation they deem appropriate. 49