Wednesday, June 18, 2025
Tuesday, June 17, 2025
A Call for Transparency and Accountability
The following letter is being shared in the interest of transparency and community awareness. As an engaged and active voice in the community, Clayton Watch is committed to shedding light on the kind of political behavior that has long affected our town.
The author of this letter is an active member of Clayton Watch and a strong advocate for truth, accountability, and the end of divisive politics that have undermined our local values for years. We firmly believe that no one is above scrutiny, even if that means calling the judge and jury out when fairness is compromised.
We encourage you to read this letter with an open mind. The concerns raised are significant and deserve thoughtful consideration. Those involved in perpetuating or enabling such conduct should be held accountable for their actions.
Thank you for your time and commitment to ensuring Clayton remains a community of integrity.
Sincerely,
The Clayton Watch Team
Hon. Terri Mockler Supervising Judge
Contra Costa County Superior Court
725 Court Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Peter Appert, Foreperson, 2024–2025 Civil Grand Jury
Contra Costa County Grand Jury
725 Court Street
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: Request for Oversight and Clarification Regarding Clayton Grand Jury Report
Dear Judge Mockler and Grand Jury Foreperson,
On behalf of concerned residents across Clayton, Clayton Watch writes to express serious concern and disappointment with the recent Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury report titled “Clayton: Small City, Big Concerns.” This report has raised significant alarm due to its sensational tone, misstatements, and potential political influence, factors that undermine public confidence in both the findings and the Grand Jury process.
From the outset, the title projected bias and sensationalism, rather than the impartial tone expected of a judicially supervised body. When political talking points begin to appear in official findings or rulings, it becomes a concern for all of us, as it weakens public faith in the integrity of the judicial system itself.
Unfortunately, the report includes multiple errors, misrepresentations, and misunderstandings that deserve immediate attention:
Misrepresentation of Leadership Turnover: The report inflates the number of City Managers by counting interim and acting officials, an inappropriate method that falsely suggests instability.
Financial Misstatements: Assertions of ongoing deficits contradict the City’s publicly available audited financial statements. How were these core financial facts overlooked?
Brown Act Allegations: The claim of Brown Act violations appears based on a misunderstanding. Agenda-setting in Clayton is not conducted by any committee, standing or otherwise.
Misunderstanding of Governance Structure: The report confuses the roles of standing committees versus ad hoc committees, reflecting a troubling lack of understanding of local government operations.
These issues raise serious questions about the diligence, fairness, and subject matter competence of the Grand Jury’s investigation.
Even more troubling are signs that the process may have been influenced by local political actors. Of particular concern is Tamara Steiner, owner of the Clayton Pioneer, who publicly called for an investigation and is reportedly connected to several individuals affiliated with the Grand Jury and Clayton politics.
Given these individuals’ visible involvement in local political matters, we request confirmation that no Grand Jurors held personal, political, or financial affiliations that would compromise impartiality. Transparency here is essential to protect the credibility of the findings.
We are also deeply concerned about apparent breaches of confidentiality:
• Just recently, in a social media post, former Councilmember Peter Cloven acknowledged receiving a Grand Jury letter in September 2024 and noted that similar letters were placed in all council members’ mailboxes. Interestingly enough, in December 2024, Councilmember Holly Tillman publicly declared that residents would “soon be eating crow,” a remark that strongly suggests foreknowledge of the report. She repeatedly requested an “investigation” during council meetings in September, October, November, and December 2024 despite allegedly knowing one was already underway. Such actions distort public discourse, drain staff resources, and appear to be politically motivated.
Additionally, while several past and present officials, including residents, were reportedly interviewed, no one from Clayton Watch, one of the most active nonpartisan civic groups in the city was contacted. Why was our perspective excluded? This omission further erodes confidence in the report’s fairness and neutrality.
Because your Court oversees the civil grand jury process, we respectfully request clarification and oversight on the following key issues:
Conflicts of Interest - Were any Grand Jurors personally, politically, or financially affiliated with Tamara Steiner, Councilmember Holly Tillman, former Councilmember Peter Cloven, or former City Manager Bret Prebula?
Report Title Authorization - Who approved the use of the report’s biased and inflammatory title?
Financial Accuracy - What sources of financial data were used, and why were the City’s audited financials seemingly disregarded?
Leadership Count Manipulation - Why were interim and acting City Managers included in the total count, when this practice is not standard?
Governance Competency - Were jurors properly trained to understand public agency structures, including the distinction between standing and ad hoc committees?
We recognize that the 2024–2025 Grand Jury may have already been discharged. However, since your Court maintains jurisdiction over this process, we respectfully request that appropriate former jurors be contacted and asked to provide answers.
We also acknowledge that mistakes happen and that every city, including Clayton, can improve. However, releasing a report riddled with misinformation and bias does not build public trust. Instead, it divides our community, misleads the public, and diminishes confidence in the Grand Jury system.
Public trust depends on transparency, fairness, and accountability. We hope you will treat this matter with the seriousness it deserves and offer the residents of Clayton the clarity they are entitled to.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns. We respectfully request a timely response.
Sincerely,
Gary Hood
Clayton Watch
Political Action Committee
FPPC ID #1471612
cc: Clayton City Council and Staff
City Manager, City of Clayton
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Hon. Christopher Bowen, Presiding Judge
Friday, June 6, 2025
Don’t Blindly Accept the Report - Learn the Facts
By Clayton Watch
A few days later, Vice Mayor Jeff Wan published an even more comprehensive analysis, directly addressing and dismantling many of the report’s claims.
To those still accepting the Grand Jury report at face value — we urge you to examine the evidence for yourself. Wan’s analysis clearly demonstrates that the report is filled with inaccuracies, misleading statements, and logical inconsistencies.
Even the title of the report raises serious concerns. How did such a biased and inflammatory headline pass approval by the foreperson and supervising judge? That alone casts doubt on the credibility of the entire process.
It’s time to stop blindly accepting the report’s narrative and start demanding accountability from those who influenced and fed misinformation to the Grand Jury.
Specifically, it’s time to hold former City Manager Bret Prebula, Councilmember Holly Tillman, former Councilmember Peter Cloven, and Clayton Pioneer owner Tamara Steiner accountable for their roles in misleading the Grand Jury and the public.
For those who haven’t seen Vice Mayor Wan’s letter, we’ve included it below for your review.
_______________________________________
By Vice Mayor Jeff Wan
Those who take on interim roles intend to only stay in the role as long as is needed to find a person on a permanent basis. In fact, many of the people who take on interim roles are retirees who are restricted from working over a certain number of hours.
To be clear, our City Attorney is able to take action independently if they have evidence or suspect any action that presents risk to the City. Without being prompted, our City Attorney has in the past offered counsel and advice unsolicited in areas they felt appropriate, and has given direction on other matters as well. Our City Manager has authority to engage a third party for up to $30K without any other approval from Council that could be used to engage a third party investigation should they so choose. Both of these roles exercise independent judgment and did not taken any action related to the request for investigation.
- The City has updated its investment policy and engaged a third party for more managed services which should yield higher returns.
- The City has updated its master fee schedule to bring more current the costs associated with providing services for rentals, uses, and administrative services. This included adding a special event fee for larger events that consume more of the City's resources.
- We engaged HDL to assist managing our business license renewal process, including efforts to determine if there were additional businesses operating in the City that required a license in an effort to increase revenue.
- We renegotiated our waste management service agreement with Republic Services to bring us in compliance with new statewide mandates for recycling.
Saturday, May 31, 2025
What the Grand Jury Didn’t Tell You About Clayton
As concerned residents and members of Clayton Watch, we are writing to you in response to the 2024–2025 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury Report, “Clayton: Small City, Big Concerns.”
While Civil Grand Juries serve a role in civic oversight, their reports are advisory. They offer opinions, not legal findings or evidentiary conclusions. That distinction is critical and often overlooked by the public.
Now to the heart of the matter: the Grand Jury missed the most important point.
During one of the most unstable periods in Clayton’s history, City Managers Reina Schwartz and Bret Prebula, under legal guidance from City Attorney Mala Subramanian, failed to lead. The City Manager is the city’s CEO; the City Attorney, its legal compass. Instead of guiding the Council and enforcing best practices, they abdicated their responsibilities, resulting in confusion, declining services, and public mistrust.
- Ms. Schwartz, hired in 2020, often worked remotely from Sacramento, limiting her presence in the city. Services deteriorated, and her tenure ended with a resignation citing personal reasons.
- Mr. Prebula, her successor, ignored hiring protocols, failed to conduct background checks, didn’t post job openings publicly, and withheld crucial financial and construction project information. Residents were forced to file Public Records Act requests just to obtain basic answers—so much for transparency.
The Grand Jury’s depiction of staff turnover was misleading. The claim of “12 City Managers” includes several short-term retirees serving as interim placeholders. Since longtime City Manager Gary Napper retired in 2019, Clayton has had four permanent managers, not twelve. Exaggerations like these undermine the credibility of the report.
Likewise, several staff departures were far from routine:
• One resigned following a DUI incident.
• Another cited a hostile work environment under Mr. Prebula (currently under investigation.)
• Some resigned due to internal dysfunction or followed Prebula’s exit.
• Others were eliminated due to restructuring.
None of this vital context made it into the report. Why?
Even more troubling is what the Grand Jury failed to include. For over 18 months, while Wolfe, Tillman, and Cloven held the majority, the city’s checkbook went unreconciled—a material weakness flagged by auditors under Ms. Schwartz’s watch. Yet during this period, these councilmembers pushed a $400 annual parcel tax while fully aware of financial disarray. At the same time, $50,000 in stolen funds from the city’s checkbook went undetected for more than six months. None of this appeared in the report.
A closer read shows that many of Clayton’s challenges stemmed from poor executive hires—Schwartz and Prebula, who were publicly supported and defended by Wolfe, Tillman, and Cloven. They continue to stand by those choices, despite the long-term consequences.
The report also contained factual inaccuracies. Capital improvement costs were miscategorized as operating expenses, giving a distorted fiscal picture. That error has since been corrected, yet the Grand Jury didn’t acknowledge it.
We must also question the report’s tone and sources. Its narrative closely mirrors that of the Clayton Pioneer—a publication long criticized for bias—whose editor, Tamara Steiner, has made no secret of her views. The report references the Clayton Business and Community Association (CBCA) 18 times, raising legitimate concerns about influence and impartiality.
Notably, before the report’s release, Councilmember Tillman publicly suggested at a past city council meeting certain residents would soon be “eating crow.” How would she know? The origins of this complaint are no mystery.
And despite all the bluster, the Grand Jury found no serious misconduct, no civil rights violations, and no improper council overreach.
Ironically, the report validates what many of us already know: real reform began with the 2022 election. Since then, the Council majority—Trupiano, Diaz, and Wan—has worked to restore stability, integrity, and transparency to City Hall. A new City Manager and Assistant City Manager are in place. Every contract has been audited. Every expense is reviewed. Financial controls have been restored. This is the leadership residents demanded—and it’s finally being delivered.
As for the report’s suggestion that Clayton “explore alternative revenue sources”? That’s tone-deaf. Fiscal responsibility doesn’t mean inventing new taxes. And for the record, the city cannot raise taxes without voter approval. Responsible governance means managing money wisely, understanding the numbers, and eliminating waste—basic concepts neglected under prior leadership but now back in practice.
To be fair, the report did offer a few useful suggestions, like improving agenda access and encouraging public participation. Fortunately, these are already top priorities for the current Council. We agree with those limited points but emphasize: the root problems began in 2020, with Wolfe, Tillman, and Cloven, and their political games.
This is why Clayton Watch was formed.
Residents had seen enough. The city was deteriorating—financially, physically, and operationally. While services crumbled, political games dominated. From a mismanaged budget to overgrown landscapes and disappearing accountability, the signs were clear. Clayton Watch stepped forward to expose failures, cut through the spin, and fight for a better future.
We support this Council’s continued work to rebuild trust and move the city forward. We urge residents to view the Grand Jury report not as a roadmap, but as a reminder of how far we’ve come—and what we must never return to.
Sincerely,
The Clayton Watch Team
Political Action Committee
P.S. For those unfamiliar:
1. Anyone can file a Grand Jury complaint anonymously and without providing evidence.
2. To serve on the Grand Jury, you must be a U.S. citizen, at least 18 years old, and a Contra Costa County resident for one year.
3. No background in law, finance, or public service is required.
Keep that in mind before treating their recommendations as gospel.