This is hypothetical.
Say the NBA couldn't find reason to deny the Hansen sale. They also don't want to take a PR hit from relocating yet another team. They decide that they could un-combine the relocation and finance committee and have the relocation committee vote first instead of the combined decision they lied about.
The relocation committee would vote first because he finance committee would recommend Seattle. The finance committee will vote later before the actual BOG vote to allow time for the NBA to have plenty articles written about how they picked Sacramento and placed principle over profit.
Based on criteria such as support in current city and and having an arena deal the relocation committee consisting of 7 members decide that they must recommend Sacramento or else their criteria for making the recommendation means nothing. They made the right recommendation based on their criteria no doubt.
However, when the finance committee votes. There is no way in hell they will recommend Sacramento. All the red flags lie in the finances. This committee will recommend Seattle. There will be a split decision heading into the full BOG vote.
The full BOG will decide that the finances outweigh the political support for a new arena. The numbers might not work out in Sacramento. They can't take the risk.
In the end, the full BOG votes for Seattle. On both relocation, and the sale. The NBA and Stern don't get any bad press. Our Sonics come home.