Recommended Free Tools
On October 9, 2026, the California High-Speed Rail Authority Board voted 7-2 to remove CEO Ian Choudri’s sole authority over contracts under $25 million. In-house attorneys must now approve or change new and existing contracts in that category. The board did not remove Choudri as CEO; it changed who reviews the contracts. The vote followed an Inspector General investigation into consultant travel reimbursements.
What changed in the Authority’s contract approvals?
Before the vote, Choudri had sole discretion to sign and manage contracts below $25 million. The new arrangement adds in-house attorneys to the approval path: they must approve or change new and existing contracts under that threshold. The board already voted on awards above $25 million, so the October 9 action added a check on smaller contracts rather than changing the board’s existing role on larger ones. CalMatters reported the vote and threshold in its October 9, 2026 coverage.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
Board chair Steve Kawa said the change “adds additional eyes and ears and authority” over approval issues. The available reporting does not establish the precise implementation date or show how the new process has affected procurement or project delivery.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsWhat did the Inspector General find about consultant travel?
The California High-Speed Rail Authority Office of the Inspector General’s September 15, 2026 investigation examined travel reimbursements for four consulting firms during fiscal years 2024-25 and 2025-26. The Authority had identified $2.013 million in travel-related payments to those firms; the investigation reviewed $1,152,400 of expenses.
#1 Best Overall
- Advance approval: The final report says $800,900, or 69% of the expenses reviewed, lacked approval before travel. The Inspector General said the absence of advance approval indicated little or no up-front consideration of travel need or cost.
- State travel rules: $81,000 in reviewed travel appeared unallowable under state travel regulations. Examples included flight and rideshare upgrades, and trips to a gym, an escape room, and a nightclub without documentation establishing a state-business purpose.
- Contract terms: A separate $543,000 in payments was not allowable under the relevant contracts, including international and out-of-state travel expenses.
These are distinct findings, not interchangeable estimates of one total. The report does not establish whether the $81,000 and $543,000 categories overlap, so they should not be added together. Nor does the lack of advance approval by itself establish that every trip was unnecessary: the Inspector General said missing documentation meant the Authority could not demonstrate that travel had been properly reviewed and approved.
The report’s final table gives $800,900 (69%) for expenses lacking advance approval. A footnote says that figure corrected a summing error in an earlier version, which stated $680,500 (60%). The corrected figure is the appropriate one to use for that finding.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
Why did the approval process draw scrutiny?
The report identified a control problem beyond the destinations or costs of individual trips: contract managers appeared to have little functional authority to approve or deny travel. In three contracts, managers worked under the direction or assumption that the CEO or another executive wanted the travel, at times despite managers’ objections.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
State rules and contract terms called for advance approval and an assessment of whether consultant travel was necessary and economical. For travel beginning on or after October 2024, agencies were also to consider available remote technology. The Inspector General found requests often lacked documented purposes, cost estimates, or a clear explanation of why work could not be done remotely.
One example in the report concerned a legal-services consultant who accumulated $40,800 in travel reimbursement and $86,500 in paid travel time—$127,300 in travel costs over the period described. The report’s broader conclusion was that allegations of inappropriate travel reimbursements were substantiated. It described paying for unnecessary travel, or travel beyond state rules or contract terms, as waste of public funds and inconsistent with the Authority’s stewardship of public resources.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What response and follow-up have been reported?
CalMatters reported that the Authority had paused travel payments to the four firms, was reviewing their claims, and had begun training staff, executives, and consultants on travel policies. Board member Lynn Schenk said, “I am outraged that we would be treated like a piggy bank for these kinds of expenditures.”
Rank #4
Those steps were reported as underway; the available sources do not establish how much, if anything, was ultimately recovered, when claim reviews concluded, or whether attorney approvals have been fully implemented. The board’s vote also does not yet show whether the added review will reduce costs, slow contracting, or affect delivery of the rail project.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Quick Recap
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
