The Placentia-Yorba Linda Unified School District (PYLUSD) has drawn scrutiny over its agreement with The Treigning Lab for the Universal Sports Institute (USI), a partnership presented as a programmatic innovation.
Concerns have emerged that the procurement process for this agreement functioned less as open competition and more as a procedural justification for a preferred vendor. The district reportedly sent the solicitation to companies seemingly unlikely to bid meaningfully and maintained a compressed deadline for responses. Simultaneously, Superintendent Cherniss had reportedly been discussing the USI concept with Sam Calavitta of The Treigning Lab for months before the formal agreement was reached.
The process appears to have favored The Treigning Lab and discouraged genuine competition. On April 18, 2024, the district reportedly sent a perfunctory solicitation to Delta Sports Group, one of the companies selected, despite its unlikelihood to bid on or perform the project on short notice. An April 12 email from ADB Bids to Kimberly Bittle, PYLUSD’s Purchasing Office Coordinator, indicated a May 1 response deadline. This provided potential bidders only days to evaluate a vaguely described project and prepare a proposal, while the intended vendor had reportedly engaged in months of prior discussions with the superintendent. The Board approved the agreement with The Treigning Lab on May 14, 2024, less than two weeks after the response period closed. This timeline raises questions about whether the Request for Proposal (RFP) was a meaningful competitive process or merely a formality.
Further concerns arise from reports that Superintendent Cherniss had been discussing USI project details with Sam Calavitta for months prior to the May 14 agreement. Although the district later claimed it solicited proposals “both through online posting and in a newspaper of general circulation,” the record lacks specifics about the website, newspaper, publication dates, circulation details, response period, or number of responsive bidders. Without this information, the procurement record is insufficient to demonstrate that the district provided fair notice, invited other serious bids, or adequately protected taxpayers.
Additionally, the timing of the board's consideration of the USI contract has been questioned. President Blades reportedly scheduled a special board session on the contract with minimal notice, setting it for 3 p.m. on Tuesday, May 14, 2024. This timing is viewed as making it difficult for working parents, taxpayers, staff, and community members to attend and review the contract, which had only just been made public. The board was thus asked to approve it before the community had a realistic chance to review the terms or raise objections. This timing is characterized as a deliberate effort to push the major public contract through before full public evaluation.
The contract itself includes substantial, recurring, and increasing project fees, software costs, annual licensing obligations, consultant-supervised personnel, and indemnity provisions that might still leave the district exposed to defense costs. Clauses also reportedly blurred responsibility between the consultant and the district. Superintendent Cherniss and certain board members reportedly demanded the program be treated as urgent, though the source of this urgency was never explained. The urgency appears to have served a political purpose, aiming to move quickly enough to prevent trustees, staff, parents, and taxpayers from fully evaluating the long-term financial, legal, and operational risks.
These provisions suggest a contract structured to favor speed, consultant control, and financial commitment while burdening the district with risk. The Treigning Lab stood to receive escalating fees, licensing revenue, and operational authority, while PYLUSD remained responsible for students, facilities, public funds, and potential political consequences. The agreement reportedly blurred lines of supervision, weakened accountability, relied on inadequate documentation, and treated indemnity as if it could erase the district’s practical exposure. If issues arise, the district would remain the public institution held accountable. The urgency surrounding the contract appears less like responsible administration and more like an effort to advance a costly and poorly vetted program before its weaknesses could be fully understood.
Attention has also turned to the physical work at the initially planned USI site at 4999 Casa Loma Avenue in Yorba Linda, where concerns about construction oversight and compliance with state facilities requirements have surfaced. In an April 14, 2024, email to Ron LaPlante, Principal Structural Engineer and Regional Manager of the Division of the State Architect’s (DSA’s) San Diego Regional Office, Superintendent Cherniss reportedly made two false representations. He claimed project costs did not exceed the applicable DSA threshold for state approval and asserted the project involved no structural alterations, concluding it was exempt from DSA review under IR A-22.
Subsequent communications reportedly showed these representations to be inaccurate. In an April 15 response, DSA’s LaPlante explained that the $128,000 threshold for construction included “the cost of all construction, overhead, profit, equipment, etc.,” suggesting Cherniss misrepresented the requirements. In a follow-up email to LaPlante on April 15, 2024, Terry Tao of Tao Rossini, PYLUSD’s legal counsel, reportedly falsely claimed there was “almost no alteration,” describing the work as mostly putting down exercise mats and bringing in equipment, and stating there were no structural alterations or items. This characterization appears to have materially misstated the scope of work and raises serious concerns about whether the district and its counsel misrepresented the project to avoid DSA review, potentially risking student and staff safety and exposing the district to litigation.
Further, in a May 19 email to Trustee Anderson, copied to other board members and select community members, Superintendent Cherniss reportedly accused Anderson, without evidence, of “going behind the board” to “slow down this project.” This accusation was described as a falsehood. These combined issues underscore a pattern of haste, evasion, and shifting explanations surrounding the Universal Sports Institute project.
