Repeated mantra brings up unexplained issue

The Daily Democrat published two articles today about the school district's administrative offices:

First: "Contamination" being used as excuse to move from Cottonwood building, Health concerns cited as reason to get out of lease

Second: School board looks at lease/purchase plan for old Blue Shield site

There was a third article printed on April 28 called A general air of uncertainty.

Here are excerpts from each:

First: "The district was going to buy the building originally for $5.6 million ($600,000 more than the appraisal). But due to a complaint filed to the Yolo County Grand Jury, the district canceled the original contract and opted for a lease-purchase option which is currently under discussion."

Second: "Originally, the school board opted to buy the building for $5.6 million but the purchase was canceled after a complaint was filed to the Yolo County grand jury. Unable to show that jury investigation wouldn't affect the contract, the school board agreed on a lease/purchase agreement."

Third: "After a complaint was filed at the Yolo County grand jury against the WJUSD, the district was unable to show that litigation would not affect their purchase of the building. Because of this, the board opted for a lease-buy option."

This brings up an issue that has gone under the radar... and the Democrat just repeats the mantra without any explanation for it. Did Government Financial Strategies, Inc. tell the district that the mere filing of a complaint is justification to stop selling Certificates of Participation? Did Premiere Commercial? Did Miller, Brown, Dannis or Schutze & Associates?

In a Woodland Journal article called More on the school board: Foursome is scolded, "Cottingim suggested that she and the trustees do not know why, or what, the investigation is about. She also indicated that the Grand Jury has refused to tell her the purpose of the investigation."

So... if Cottingim and the trustees don't know what the investigation is about, then how can advice be given to stop the sale of the COPs? If that advice was given, where is the documentation? You won't find any reference to it in any of the minutes.