STORYLINE Sacramento City Hall / Politics

This storyline has only one article

Viewing thru of

Close timeline

No high resolution image exists...

Progress bar

Loading images
Slideshow image

The city attorney’s office is not providing information on how the city will respond to claims of potential quid pro quo in the development department.

Allegations of possible quid pro quo at the Community Development Department were mentioned in a Jan. 26 report from the offices of the city attorney and the city manager.

But it’s unknown when an investigation into the allegations may begin.

In a Monday e-mail response to questions from The Sacramento Press, City Attorney Eileen Teichert referred to the claims of possible quid pro quo as a “personnel issue.” She indicated in her response that some information about the issue may eventually become public depending on whether the city takes disciplinary actions.

Questions for the city attorney

The Sacramento Press asked Teichert the following questions in an April 2 e-mail:

Which body will investigate that issue (the potential quid pro quo)? When will the investigation (of) this issue begin? Will information from the investigation be made public? If not, why?

Teichert’s response

Teichert responded to the above questions in an April 5 e-mail:

"Pursuant to Council direction all matters meriting further audit or investigation, that did not involve personnel issues, were provided to the City Council. I understand that the third-party auditing firm (yet to be selected) will be tasked with looking at these matters provided to the City Council. The timing for such audit is unknown and the results will be public.

"As for personnel issues, the City cannot divulge information regarding any such investigation, as to do so would compromise the investigation and would infringe on the subject's rights of privacy. At such time as the investigation is complete and if findings are made resulting in discipline, the nature of the discipline and a description of the basis for imposing the discipline will be make public."

Making sense of CDD investigations

The possible quid pro quo is among several issues that may affect the department, according to the Jan. 26 report.

The city has taken a variety of responses to numerous issues at the department. It may be helpful to break down recent city actions to understand the issues.

To begin with, a city employee last year gave permits to K. Hovnanian Homes to build in a Natomas flood area, according to a Dec. 15 letter Teichert’s office sent to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Teichert’s office and Renee Sloan Holtzman Sakai, an outside law firm, investigated that issue. City officials have admitted that the employee’s decision broke FEMA rules.

Then, several more issues were mentioned in the Jan. 26 report on the Teichert and Renee Sloan investigation of the building permits problem. These issues included the possible quid pro quo, claims of unpaid development fees and problems with the department’s culture, among other concerns.

City officials released a 2,529-page document on the issues March 25. A third-party auditor will investigate the issues in the document, according to City Auditor Jorge Oseguera.

But the status of the possible quid pro quo concern remains unclear. Teichert’s e-mail to The Sacramento Press indicates that many details surrounding that issue will not be made public.

At a Jan. 26 City Council meeting, Assistant City Manager John Dangberg and Courtney McAlister, an attorney for K. Hovnanian Homes, both said there was no quid pro quo between Hovnanian Homes and the city.

Kathleen Haley is a staff reporter for The Sacramento Press.

Liked this article? Share it with your friends:

Conversation Express your views, debate, and be heard with those in your area closest to the issue.RSS Feed

April 7, 2010 | 5:49 AM
I think it may be time for ALL parties involved in this fiasco to take a hard look at the old maxim BEFORE the FBI comes knocking. "Its never the crime...its the cover-up".
0 0
REPLY
April 8, 2010 | 4:51 PM
Would be great if your publication reported on the juicier bits of the 2500+ page document, per above, as well as the specifics regarding the investigation and the date the audit will be released.
0 0
REPLY
Leave a Comment
User icon
Type your comment in the box below Edit your comment in the box below

Type tags into the box below. Use commas to separate your tags.

Please Log in or Sign up

Existing Members

Sign In Progress bar Forgot Password?

New Users Create an Account Here
Progress bar
Verification email has been sent. To validate your account open the link provided in the message.
There was a problem sending your verification email. Please contact support@sacramentopress.com
Progress bar Login background Tag cloud top Tag cloud background Tag cloud bottom Login manager background