The board overseeing California's high-speed rail project has stripped chief executive Ian Choudri of his sole authority to sign contracts under $25 million after inspectors found $600,000 in questionable consultant travel, including first-class flights, luxury rides and visits to a nightclub and cigar lounge billed to taxpayers.
The board voted 7-2 on Friday to rein in Choudri's contracting authority and to require the authority's in-house attorneys to approve or amend new and existing contracts. The authority's board already had to vote on awards above $25 million, so the change removes the chief executive's independent control over the large band of spending below that threshold. Board chair Steve Kawa said the decision adds additional eyes and authority over the problems exposed by the investigation and insisted that not one dollar of taxpayer money should be misused.
The findings came from the project's inspector general, who examined travel expenses submitted by four consulting firms over two years. Investigators found most trips were unauthorised or poorly justified, sometimes undertaken at the request of top executives, and that agency staff failed to vet requests properly before approving them. In some cases staff reportedly did not know about a trip until an invoice arrived. The spending included first-class air travel, luxury ground transport and after-hours visits to restaurants, bars, residences, a nightclub and a cigar lounge.
The sums are small beside the project's overall price tag, estimated at $126 billion, but board members treated the pattern as a symptom rather than a rounding error. Lynn Schenk, who has served on the board since 2003, said she was outraged that the agency appeared to be treated like a piggy bank and argued the travel findings suggest other expenditures may have been handled the same way. That framing, mismanagement rather than one bad invoice, is what made the board's response a leadership story instead of an accounting footnote.
California's high-speed rail programme has battled cost growth and delay for years, which makes visible waste especially damaging. Supporters argue the project's value should be judged on long-term transport and climate benefits, but public confidence depends on basic stewardship of money in the present. A travel scandal gives critics a simple, vivid example to cite, far easier to communicate than engineering disputes, and it pressures the board to demonstrate control before asking taxpayers and lawmakers for continued patience.
Choudri remains chief executive, but with materially reduced power. The requirement that in-house lawyers clear contracts is both a practical control and a public signal that trust has been withdrawn. Whether further findings emerge from the deeper scrutiny board members demanded will decide if this is the end of the episode or the start of a broader reckoning over how the authority and its consultants spend public money on a project that can least afford the distraction.