Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Construction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Riverside Unified STEM Center audit request held on call after contested testimony
Summary
Senator Susan T. Cervantes requested an audit into Riverside Unified School District’s proposed STEM Center and whether Measure O bond funds were used in accordance with voter materials. The district and community witnesses clashed over transparency; the committee held the item on call pending further review.
Senator Susan T. Cervantes asked the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to audit Riverside Unified School District’s proposed STEM Center project, focusing on whether local bond (Measure O) funds were used in line with voter materials and whether district board procedures and disclosures were consistent with state law.
Senator Cervantes said the STEM Center — a new high school proposed near an existing Riverside high school and developed in partnership discussions with the University of California, Riverside — has provoked sustained community controversy. She said the $64 million of Measure O funds cited for the project were not listed in early ballot materials and that there are questions about how and when the district added the project to its project list.
Scope and auditor’s description: State Auditor Grama Parks told the committee his office would assess whether the district complied with applicable laws and regulations when selecting the STEM Center project for Measure O funding; determine amounts allocated and spent to date; and evaluate whether key lease terms with UC Riverside have been disclosed in accordance with best practices. Parks noted ongoing litigation related to Measure O may limit the audit’s scope for items that are currently before the courts.
Testimony: Riverside Unified Superintendent Dr. Renee Hill said the STEM Academy is an existing program (grades 5–12) and that the district has engaged in public meetings, a citizens’ bond oversight committee and board deliberations. Community representatives and retired district administrators said the project was not transparent to voters and alleged the district updated its uses after the bond passed. Local witnesses asked the committee to examine whether the district followed required open‑meeting procedures and whether any conflicts of interest existed among board members.
Committee action: Members questioned the scope and the relationship between the adjudicated issues and matters still on appeal. The committee took no final vote and left the audit request on call pending further review.
