Headline News!

CLAYTON DESERVES THE TRUTH, NOT THE DRAMA

Concerts in the Grove, Misleading Financial Claims, and Another City Council Controversy

A Clayton Watch Editorial

Concerts in the Grove

Enough is enough.

Clayton residents deserve facts, honesty, and accountability, not misleading financial comparisons, personal grievances, and endless political drama.

A small but vocal group continues to criticize the City and accuse others of dishonesty. Yet when those accusations are made, where is the evidence?

If you're going to call someone a liar, identify the lie, explain what's false, and provide the facts to back it up.

Repeating accusations on social media doesn't make them true.

Two recent controversies illustrate why Clayton Watch believes it's time to set the record straight.

1. CONCERTS IN THE GROVE: WHOSE CONCERTS WERE THEY ANYWAY?

Let's establish one important fact.

Concerts in the Grove was never a Howard Geller production. It was never a CBCA event. It has always been a City of Clayton-sponsored event.

The City provided the venue, assumed financial responsibility, and carried the liability. Howard Geller contributed years of volunteer service, and he deserves recognition. But helping organize a City event doesn't make it your personal property.

In 2023, the City established an oversight committee chaired by Councilmembers Jim Diaz and Kim Trupiano because the concerts needed greater formal oversight. Howard stated at the recent council meeting it was Jeff Wan and Kim Trupiano. Howard was wrong. It was Jim Diaz and Kim Trupiano.

That raises some legitimate questions about previous operations:

• Who authorized Geller, who was not a City employee, to sign permits and other documents?
  
• Who approved the reported VIP seating area and special parking passes for selected individuals?
  
• Were band agreements properly documented, payments verified, and insurance certificates obtained?
  
• Who was responsible for tracking and reconciling income and expenses?

These are basic accountability questions, not personal attacks.

Following the transition, Trupiano worked with Geller, assumed sponsorship responsibilities, and developed a procedural manual. The City strengthened its management of contracts, insurance, security, and finances.

And guess what? The concerts have continued for three additional seasons without Geller running them.

The Financial Numbers Tell a Different Story

Some of the financial comparisons circulating on social media appear to leave out important information.

Historically, expenses such as security, advertising, insurance, and staff time were not always charged directly to the concerts. Additionally, it is our understanding that some City-sponsored event revenues and expenses are accounted for collectively.

In other words, revenue from one event may help support another.

You cannot fairly compare concert finances without accounting for those differences.

Now consider the reported City sponsorship revenue:

Year     Sponsorships

2018	$24,200
2019	$21,375
2020	$0
2021	$2,608
2022	$24,570
2023	$31,500
2024	$54,500
2025	$40,700
2026	$47,600

The pandemic affected 2020 and 2021. Comparing 2018–2019 with 2023–2026, average annual sponsorship revenue increased approximately 91%.

These figures cover City sponsorships, some of which support multiple events, rather than concert profits alone. Nevertheless, they demonstrate substantial sponsorship growth under the newer arrangements.

So where exactly is the evidence that the City's greater involvement has been a financial failure? And why was a CBCA Board Member contacting sponsors and telling them not to donate to the concerts. Their president Carl Wolfe said he would find out. . . but never got back to the council with the answer.

And Why Was There a $96,000 Reserve/Slush Fund?

Another question deserves an answer.

Why was more than $96,000 reportedly accumulated in funds associated with Concerts in the Grove at its peak?

Perhaps Howard Geller was saving up to bring Carlos Santana to the Grove!

All kidding aside, the concerts were never intended to make a profit. Their purpose is to provide entertainment for Clayton residents.

A reasonable reserve makes sense, but why that much? Who determined the amount, and what was the money intended for?

Wouldn't it make more sense to establish an annual budget, secure sponsors each year, and use the funds to produce the best possible concerts?

The goal should be great community entertainment, not simply accumulating a large bank balance.

Of course, the exact purpose and restrictions on those reported funds should be established before drawing conclusions.

What's Really Behind the Attacks?

Here's another question: Why are certain former organizers so determined to portray the City negatively?

Clayton Watch believes the controversy may have more to do with the City's revised Master Fee Schedule and its decision to take responsibility for its own events than with the concerts themselves.

We understand that some individuals unhappy with those decisions withdrew volunteer and sponsorship assistance.

If so, were those actions intended to benefit the community, or were they a reaction to losing influence?

There are also questions about a concert-related Facebook page reportedly managed by someone previously compensated by the City. If City resources supported an official event page, shouldn't its ownership and administration be clarified?

CONCERTS IN THE GROVE BELONGS TO CLAYTON

Howard Geller

Howard Geller deserves recognition for his years of volunteer service. But there is a difference between helping organize a community event and believing that event belongs to you.

Sorry, Howard, but you're never going to be Bill Graham productions. And Concerts in the Grove was never your personal production. It belongs to the people of Clayton, not the person who booked the bands.

The City has every right, and responsibility, to oversee its own events, account for public resources, and ensure the concerts continue for generations to come.

WATCH THE VIDEO: WHEN THE CONCERTS BECAME POLITICAL THEATER

Sometimes a video tells the story better than words.

In this March 2023 City Council clip, former council member Howard Geller addresses the Council during the controversy surrounding Concerts in the Grove.

WATCH HOWARD GELLER'S CITY COUNCIL REMARKS

And take a look at City Council Candidate Amy Callaghan, reportedly sitting in the front row applauding.

We have to wonder: How many City Council meetings has Callaghan actually attended? And why did this particular controversy appear to deserve her enthusiastic applause?

Clayton voters deserve candidates who consistently follow City business, not just those who show up for the political fireworks.

With the concert series' 20th season approaching, it's time to put old disagreements aside and celebrate what the concerts were created to provide: music, friendship, and community.

2. HOLLY “LETECIA” TILLMAN: WAS ANOTHER CONTROVERSY REALLY NECESSARY?

At the recent City Council meeting, representatives of local school Parent Faculty Clubs participated in a presentation involving funds raised through Concerts in the Grove.

It should have been a positive moment recognizing the schools, students, and volunteers who make the partnership successful. Hoyer Hall was packed with parents and kids excited about the evening, but Tillman once again had to create drama. Click here to watch Holly in action at 01:28.

Instead, Councilmember Holly Tillman reportedly excused herself after referencing concerns involving Mt. Diablo Elementary's Parent Faculty Club and its bylaws.

Really? During a presentation recognizing support for our local schools?

If Tillman has legitimate concerns, she has every right to raise them. But why not contact the appropriate school officials, review the facts, and resolve the matter through the proper channels? We know she didn’t do her homework, because we contacted school officials and the MDUSD main office and were told there were no problems with the PFC bylaws.

What specific bylaw was at issue? Was any violation established? And why was this the appropriate occasion to raise it?

Our schools and parent volunteers deserve better than becoming part of another City Council controversy.

Leadership is about solving problems, not creating unnecessary distractions.

The evening should have been about recognizing the students and volunteers, not another political disagreement.

CLAYTON DESERVES BETTER

There is a common thread connecting these controversies: too much attention is being given to accusations and personal disputes, and too little to the people actually doing the work.

Concerts in the Grove continue to bring residents together. Our schools benefit from community partnerships. And the City has a responsibility to manage public events with transparency and accountability.

Clayton Watch welcomes legitimate criticism of the City government. But accountability works both ways.

If you claim someone is lying, identify the lie. If you claim money is being mismanaged, show the complete financial picture. If you believe something is wrong, provide the evidence.

And if you cannot substantiate an accusation, stop repeating it.

Enough of the personal grievances. Enough of the misleading comparisons.

Enough of turning community accomplishments into political controversies.

Clayton deserves facts, responsible leadership, and people willing to put the community ahead of themselves.

It's time to put Clayton first.

The Clayton Watch Team

Amy Callaghan: “67 Minutes of Talk. Little Substance.”

Clayton Watch Examines the Candidate's Podcast Interview - and Finds Plenty of Criticism but Few Convincing Answers

Amy Callaghan had one hour and seven minutes on the Be Curious Contra Costa podcast to explain why she deserves a seat on the Clayton City Council.

Sixty-seven minutes to demonstrate her understanding of city finances, public safety, development, and community programs. Sixty-seven minutes to explain what she has accomplished and what she intends to do.

Instead, listeners heard plenty about what Callaghan believes is wrong with Clayton, but far less about how she would actually fix it.

Her repeated references to how she “feels,” along with approximately 75 uses of “um,” were noticeable. But the more troubling issue was the substance of her answers.

And the podcast did little to challenge them. It largely presented her claims as a favorable candidate profile rather than subjecting them to serious scrutiny.

Clayton Watch strongly opposes Callaghan's candidacy. Her own interview illustrates why.

City Finances: Criticism Without a Financial Plan
During the podcast, Callaghan said she recognized Clayton's financial problems as early as 2017 or 2018.

That's nearly a decade of concern. But what did she actually do about it?

She discussed deferred maintenance, infrastructure needs, and long-term revenue without presenting a detailed financial strategy.

She has also questioned the city's facility-use fee increases. If she believes Clayton faces a serious financial problem, how does opposing efforts to recover the cost of city services fit into her proposed solution?

Her comments about redevelopment successor agency funding were particularly incomplete.

The former Redevelopment Agency was dissolved under California law in 2012. The Successor Agency's eventual closure was anticipated. Approximately $510,459 in associated revenues and expenditures were scheduled to disappear together.

Yes, Clayton lost some administrative revenue. But Callaghan's discussion did not explain the actual net financial impact.

A candidate who wants to oversee Clayton's budget should know the difference between lost gross revenue and a genuine net budget loss. That's basic financial management.

Concerts in the Grove: Does She Understand the Program She's Criticizing?

Callaghan questioned staging costs, approximately $10,000 in marketing expenses, and the reduction from ten concerts to eight.

She suggested returning to a more volunteer-driven approach.

But Concerts in the Grove has long been a city-sponsored program supported by volunteers. That isn't a new idea.

What about the wear and tear on the park, complaints from neighbors, and the impact of large crowds on downtown businesses? Those factors also deserve consideration.

If she believes the program costs too much, which expenses would she eliminate? What services would be reduced? How much would the city actually save?

It's easy to criticize spending when you don't have to explain the consequences of cutting it.

Olivia and Developer Contributions: The Questions She Didn't Answer
During the podcast, Callaghan emphasized that her background is in commercial property management, not residential development.

But that explanation doesn't resolve questions about her campaign supporters or housing positions.

According to the October 2 campaign disclosure previously identified by Clayton Watch, three individuals associated with real estate development contributed a reported total of $4,604.79 to her campaign.

She has also received endorsements from former council members associated with approval of the Olivia on Marsh Creek development.

Contributions and endorsements do not establish improper influence. Nevertheless, voters deserve to understand her position.

Does she support Olivia on Marsh Creek as approved? What changes would she seek? How would she approach additional high-density housing in Clayton?

Explaining her employment background is not a substitute for answering questions about housing policy.

Bullying at City Hall: A Serious Claim Without Publicly Presented Evidence
One of the most concerning subjects in Callaghan's interview was her characterization of bullying and the political environment at City Hall.

If she believes city employees have been bullied, that allegation deserves evidence.

At a recent town hall, staff reportedly described a positive working environment, saying employees get along and enjoy working for Clayton. Callaghan herself praised City Manager Kris Lofthus for improving employee morale and achieving full staffing.

Those statements do not rule out individual workplace problems. But they do make it important to establish precisely what misconduct Callaghan is alleging and what supports her claims.

Serious allegations involving city employees should not become political talking points without substantiation.

Eight Years of Feeling Unheard. What Did She Accomplish?
Callaghan told podcast listeners that she has felt unheard at City Hall for approximately eight years.

But feeling unheard is not proof that anyone prevented her from participating.

What proposals did she advance during those years? What city policies did she help improve? What results can she point to?

She discussed volunteering with her husband at Oktoberfest for approximately fifteen years. That service deserves recognition, but volunteering at an event and demonstrating readiness to govern a city are different responsibilities.

After years of criticizing city leadership, Callaghan should be able to demonstrate a record of constructive involvement and specific accomplishments.

The Podcast Failed to Ask the Tough Questions
The published account of Callaghan's interview gave considerable space to her concerns and promises. What it offered much less of was independent examination.

Why wasn't she pressed to explain the net impact of successor agency funding? Why weren't her claims about bullying examined? Why wasn't she asked to identify specific concert expenses she would eliminate?

A candidate's claims should not become accepted facts simply because they appear in a lengthy, favorable Podcast.

The Podcast tells readers what Callaghan thinks. It does little to establish whether her claims withstand scrutiny.

Sixty-Seven Minutes Later, Clayton Is Still Waiting
Amy Callaghan chose to discuss these issues publicly. Clayton Watch is responding to the statements she made—not inventing controversies or questioning her right to seek office.

But the interview left substantial doubts about the depth of her financial analysis, the practicality of her proposals, and the evidence supporting some of her accusations.

Clayton needs City Council members who understand the city's operations, examine the facts, and can make difficult decisions with real consequences.

Callaghan has spent years describing what she believes is wrong with Clayton. Her Podcast appearance was an opportunity to demonstrate that she knows how to make things better.

Sixty-Seven Minutes of Talk

Plenty of criticism. Too few concrete answers.

That's why Clayton Watch believes Amy Callaghan is the wrong choice for Clayton City Council.

Clayton Watch welcomes factual corrections and responses from all candidates.

Clayton's Future Is on the Ballot — Important Information for Voters

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

With the Tuesday, November 3rd election fast approaching, Clayton voters face important decisions about the future of our community, its leadership, and the direction our city will take in the years ahead.

Clayton Watch believes voters deserve facts, transparency, and accountability,  not political promises, misleading statements, or unanswered questions.

We are sharing two attached flyers highlighting our concerns about City Council candidates Amy Callaghan and Charlie Schmidt. These include questions surrounding campaign contributions, political endorsements, community events, Measure M, development, and their stated priorities for Clayton.

Four candidates are seeking seats on the Clayton City Council. Two of those candidates, Maria Shulman and Kim Trupiano, have established records of community involvement, public service, and contributions to Clayton. Their experience and accomplishments provide voters with a record they can evaluate.

With Amy Callaghan and Charlie Schmidt, however, Clayton Watch believes there are serious questions that deserve answers. We are particularly concerned about statements and representations that, in our view, do not accurately reflect the City's financial condition, its challenges, or the decisions facing residents.

Clayton deserves leadership based on demonstrated accomplishments, sound judgment, and a clear understanding of our community, not simply campaign rhetoric.

We encourage you to take a few minutes to review both attached flyers, consider the issues raised, and make an informed decision before casting your vote.

For additional election coverage, candidate questionnaires, and information about the issues affecting our community, try our “Search Queries” feature to the right and enter a keyword or phrase.

Election Day is Tuesday, November 3, 2026.

Thank you for staying informed and for caring about Clayton's future.

The Clayton Watch Team

CLAYTON WATCH | October 11, 2026

Developer Contributions, Olivia Endorsements, and Clayton's Future: Questions Amy Callaghan Should Answer

Who Is Supporting the Candidates Who Want to Shape Clayton's Future?

A recent social media post has raised questions about Clayton City Council candidate Amy Callaghan's campaign contributions, political endorsements, and position on future housing development in Clayton.

These questions deserve public attention.

According to an October 2, 2026, Form 497 campaign disclosure shared publicly, Callaghan's campaign reported receiving contributions from three individuals identifying their occupations as developer or real estate development.

The reported contributions include:

• Philip Tagami — $1,562.81 

• Leonard Epstein — $2,000.00

• Grant Alvernaz — $1,041.98 (Oakhurst owner)

Total reported contributions: $4,604.79.

Accepting campaign contributions is not, in itself, evidence of wrongdoing. However, understanding who financially supports a candidate is an important part of making an informed voting decision.

The Olivia Connection

The same social media post also raises questions about Callaghan's endorsements from former Clayton Council Members Julie Pierce, Tuija Catalano, and CW Wolfe.

According to the post, all three voted in favor of the controversial Olivia development, the 81-unit, three-story apartment project currently under construction near downtown Clayton.

Their endorsements do not automatically establish that Callaghan shares every position they previously held. Nevertheless, given Clayton's continuing debate over housing density, traffic, infrastructure, and local control, voters have reason to ask where she stands.

Three Questions Amy Callaghan Should Answer

Clayton Watch believes residents deserve straightforward answers to three important questions:

1. Future Development: Would you support additional high-density housing projects similar in size and scope to Olivia?

2. Local Control: How would your proposed transportation policies affect Clayton's ability to maintain local control over future development decisions?

3. Developer Contributions: Will you commit to evaluating future development proposals independently, regardless of campaign contributions or political endorsements?

These are reasonable questions for anyone seeking a seat on the Clayton City Council.

Clayton's Future Belongs to Its Residents

Decisions made by the next City Council will influence Clayton's character, financial stability, infrastructure, and development for years to come.

Residents deserve to understand not only what candidates promise during an election but also who supports their campaigns and what policies they intend to pursue once elected.

Clayton Watch invites Amy Callaghan to address these questions publicly and welcomes her response for publication.

The election is approaching. The time for answers is now.

Clayton Watch — Keeping Our Community Informed.

Clayton Watch Candidate Questionnaires 

Important Note Before Reading the Candidates Answers

A few people around town, including a college professor and the leader of the “No on Measure M” campaign, have been challenging Clayton Watch’s credibility by suggesting that our flyer mailed to approximately 4,000 residents was somehow dishonest or intentionally misleading.

That accusation is false.

The flyer was created and printed days before the candidate questionnaire was sent to the candidates. Here’s another fact worth considering: the deadline to submit a flyer insert to the Diablo Gazette was September 18, 2026. So if their criticism is based on the timing or content of the Clayton Watch flyer, perhaps they should first get their facts, and their timeline, straight.

At the time the flyer was created, neither of the two candidates had publicly taken a position for or against Measure M or Measure N.

The questionnaire came later. When the candidates were directly asked where they stood on Measures M and N, the candidates stated that they supported both measures.

That raises a legitimate question: Why did the candidates wait until they were specifically asked before stating their positions publicly?

For those claiming the flyer was unfair or misleading, perhaps the focus should be on the actual timeline and why the candidates waited so long to tell Clayton voters where they stood on two of the most important measures on the November ballot.

Clayton Watch stands by its work. We believe residents deserve transparency, accountability, and the facts they need to make informed decisions.

Clayton Watch Candidate Questionnaires And Answers Are Now Available (See below.)

Clayton Watch is now publishing the candidate questionnaires submitted by the four candidates for Clayton City Council.

Each candidate was given the same seven questions, providing every candidate with an equal opportunity to explain their positions and priorities to Clayton voters.

The questions and answers are presented in the same order they were received from each candidate. The candidates’ responses are being published as submitted, without editing or commentary by Clayton Watch.

Click the link for each candidate to view the questions and their complete responses. We encourage Clayton residents to read all four questionnaires, compare the candidates’ answers, and make their own informed decisions before voting.

Kim Trupiano - Date response was received - September 23rd @ 12:36 PM

Maria Shulman -  Date response was received - September 24th @ 1:46 PM
 
Amy Callagham - Date response was received - September 25th @ 8:37 PM

Charlie Schmidt - Date response was received - September 26th @ 2:05 PM
__________________________________________________________________

The letter below was sent to each candidate.

September 20, 2026

Dear Clayton City Council Candidate,

Clayton Voters Want to Hear From You

The November election is approaching, and Clayton residents are beginning to make decisions about the future of our community.

Clayton Watch would like to give each City Council candidate an equal opportunity to communicate directly with Clayton voters — in their own words.

The seven questions below were developed from issues and concerns raised by members of the Clayton community.They are intended to give voters an opportunity to hear directly from each candidate about issues affecting Clayton and its residents.

Rather than asking candidates to download and complete a separate questionnaire, we have included the seven questions directly in this email.

To participate, simply click “Reply,” type your response directly beneath each question, and send the email back to us.

Your responses will be published exactly as submitted, without editing or commentary by Clayton Watch. Each candidate will receive the same questions and the same opportunity to respond.

Clayton Watch currently receives approximately 5,000 to 8,000 views each week, providing candidates with an opportunity to communicate directly with a substantial number of Clayton residents and voters.

We ask that responses be reasonably concise so that voters can easily read and understand each candidate's answers.

Please Respond By Saturday, September 26, 2026, at 4:00 p.m.

Candidate responses will be made publicly available on ClaytonWatch.org and may also be shared through Clayton Watch's other community outreach channels.