Mr. Clark’s 12/28/2017 column in the Bonanza defending IVGID staff’s sale of unbuildable parcels is difficult to comprehend. He completely overlooks staff’s lack of honesty and transparency.

Here are just a few examples of the deception, where according to Mr. Clark, the ends justify the means (another way of saying all’s well that ends well):

• Eick’s statement made misrepresentations to the IVGID Board. When Jerry Eick went to the Board in 2012 to request authorization to transfer the lots to the district, he claimed that the problem was that the parcels were on the rec roll and affected the budget and that the transfer would allow IVGID to remove the parcels from the rec roll. But IVGID makes up the rec roll and it is not supposed to include public property.  Most of these lots belonged to the County since 1994, so they were not subject to the rec fee. This was not a reason to purchase the lots.

• Eick made a misrepresentation to Washoe County. He represented that IVGID wanted the parcels for a public purpose. Instead of removing the parcels from the rec roll (one of his alleged reasons for needing to acquire the parcels), less than a year after the transfer of the parcels to IVGID, Mr. Eick deeded over one of the parcels to a private party. It’s now quite clear that his intention from the outset was to sell the parcels to private parties. The County could have sold the lots at auction and garnered some revenue, but it relied upon Mr. Eick’s representation that the land would be transferred to the District as open space. We don’t know what a private party might be able to do in the future, as rules and regulations can change; the buyers would have no obligation to maintain the lots as open space or for a public purpose.

• Guinasso’s claim that the policy 3.1.0 covers real property sales is an attempt to deceive the public and the Board. I listened to the livestream recording of the Board meeting where this policy was last modified (January 14, 2015). The Board never discussed giving staff authority to sell District real property. The terms purchase, expense, spending limit, and checks were all used, but there was never any mention of sales or revenue.

If you look at the Nevada statutes (332 and 338) that the policy was supposed to “mirror”, they only deal with purchases, and to a limited extent, sales of personal property, not sales of real property because for responsible public agencies, this is a power reserved to the governing board. In his quote in the RGJ article, Mr. Guinasso used the term “procurement” suggesting he knew perfectly well the policy was drafted to deal with purchases. But, just for the sake of argument, if  the policy can “legally” apply to real property, it absurdly gives the GM the power to sell any IVGID real property since the 2 statutes it refers to have no “thresholds” for real property transactions (see 332.185.3). Perhaps the Policy was poorly written, but based on the discussion at the meeting in 2015, it was intended for procurement contracts only. Mr. Guinasso was present when the policy was reviewed. If the policy was supposed to apply to all contracts, then he did a poor job of advising the Board. Either Board members did not understand this policy potentially gave the GM authority to sell District land, or they just kept their mouths shut so the changes would pass.

• Staff acted in an inconsistent and irresponsible manner. Staff came to the Board to purchase the parcels (free is definitely below the GM’s spending authority), so why didn’t it come to the Board to sell them? Why does the Board approve easements that surely must not have a value exceeding the GM’s supposed “thresholds” for contracts? Why did staff come to the Board to lease the land for Parasol if it already had the authority to enter into all contracts of $25,000? Parasol only paid a dollar a year, so the contract was way under the supposed “limit”.

In both the transfer of the parcels to IVGID and the sale of the lots to private parties, staff (and Counsel) violated basic principles of honesty and transparency.  All is not well.

What’s the latest on IVGID financials? IVGID tries to convince the public that it is open and transparent. It points to opengov (on the IVGID site) to make their point. However,as anyone with an accounting background knows opengov is only one piece of the financial picture. One property owner has asked to see bank account transactions. Thus far, IVGID steadfastly refuses to provide them.

The City of Bell, a poster child for corrupt government, ran into serious trouble a few years back; it now posts all its bank accounts and transactions online. Why does IVGID insist on hiding them?