Toby the "Watchdog"

Welcome to Clayton Watch! 

A place where you can find the pulse of the city, the truth, letters and opinions from residents, city events, campaign statements, links to city hall, and so much more. With hundreds of articles to view, try our “Search Queries” feature to the right and enter a keyword or phrase. Want to dig deeper? Use the Labels feature at the bottom of each article to find related stories. And if you’re hunting for something specific, our "Popular Posts" feature to the right is another quick way to get there.

Top News!

 Clayton Watch · Candidate Record Review · No. 1

The Peter Cloven Record: What Clayton’s Books Show

A review of the City’s financial oversight during Peter Cloven’s term as Mayor

An update on the Clayton City Council election. Five residents have pulled papers to run. As of today, none have submitted the completed paperwork required to qualify for the November ballot.

Those who have pulled papers: Peter Cloven, Councilmember Kim Trupiano, Mayor Jeff Wan, Planning Commissioner Maria Shulman, and Amy Callaghan.

Over the coming months, Clayton Watch will examine the public record of each of these candidates and publish what we find, from City records, our own files, and other background material. We will do this for every name on the list.

We begin with Peter Cloven, who previously served as Mayor of Clayton. 

Every item below comes from documents on file 
at Clayton City Hall. Nothing here is our characterization of events; it is what the City’s own records say.

VOTED YES

Peter Cloven voted to approve the Olivia development on Marsh Creek over resident objection.

The project was approved with inadequate parking spaces for 81 units, below the City’s own parking standard. Residents raised the shortfall at public hearings. Peter Cloven voted yes, not once, but twice to move the project forward.

18 MONTHS

Under Peter Cloven, the City’s checkbook went unreconciled for more than 18 months.

Reconciling the checkbook is the most basic financial control a city has. Without it, no one can say what the City holds or where it went. Peter Cloven presided over the Council throughout that period, and he did nothing about it.

$50,000

Under Peter Cloven, $50,000 of the City’s money went missing.

The City manager reported roughly $50,000 unaccounted for. It sat undetected for months. Peter Cloven was Mayor when it was reported, and the records show no audit, no investigation, and no action taken by Peter Cloven.

NO ANSWER

Peter Cloven could not state what the City held in their investment accounts.

Asked on the record about Clayton’s accounts and investments, Mayor Peter Cloven was unable to answer.

VOTED NO

Peter Cloven voted against the City’s budget.

The budget funds police, roads, and services. Peter Cloven, presiding as Mayor, voted no. He said he was drinking out of a firehose.

$30,000

Peter Cloven proposed the $30,000 community survey, then voted to fund it.

Residents had already made their position clear, no new taxes. They support the police, and love this town. Peter Cloven proposed spending $30,000 to ask again, and voted yes to waste our tax payer money on a survey, so he could justify raising our taxes.

$400 / YR

Peter Cloven urged the Council to move forward with a $400-per-year parcel tax on Clayton homeowners.

He argued for asking residents to close a gap the City’s own unreconciled books made impossible to measure. He took the easy way out and failed to do the hard work.

What Peter Cloven’s successors did differently

The current Council identified unneeded contracts and produced a complete accounting of the City’s income and expenses. That is ordinary financial oversight. It was not attempted under Peter Cloven.

This is not the first time

Peter Cloven pulled papers in the last election cycle and did not file them. The record above was available then, as it is now.

Why the Peter Cloven record matters now

Clayton is a small city. A $50,000 gap is real money here, and 18 months without a reconciliation is not a clerical lapse, it is the absence of a control. Peter Cloven presided over that period. Residents are entitled to weigh it.

Every document cited is public. Request it from the City Clerk, or ask Clayton Watch and we’ll point you to it.

By Clayton Watch, FPPC ID #1471612. Statements about Mr. Cloven’s record are based on public City records; conclusions are the opinions of the committee.

Top Story

Clayton Watch Political Action Committee

Why Clayton Watch Went Quiet on the Civil Grand Jury Report — Until Now

For nearly a year, Clayton Watch Political Action Committee has raised concerns
regarding Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury Report No. 2505, Clayton: Small City, Big Concerns. Those concerns center on what Clayton Watch believes are factual inaccuracies, omissions, and interpretive statements that do not align with the underlying public record.

Because Civil Grand Jury reports carry significant authority and become a permanent part of the public record, we believed it was important to proceed carefully, responsibly, and based on verifiable facts.

Why We Took Action

Before taking any formal action, Clayton Watch spent months reviewing:

• - Audited financial records
• - City Council minutes and agendas
• - Staffing timelines
• - Brown Act requirements
• - Revenue planning actions taken by the City
• - California Civil Grand Jury procedures and standards

Only after completing that review did we conclude that portions of Report 2505 raised legitimate questions concerning factual accuracy, omissions, and narrative framing.

What We Did

Contrary to what some may believe, Clayton Watch did not immediately go public, contact the media, or launch political attacks. Instead, we pursued every available avenue for review.

After completing our research and analysis, Clayton Watch formally notified:

• - The Superior Court
• - The Presiding Judge
• - County Counsel
• - The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
• - The Civil Grand Jurors' Association

In addition, we submitted a Public Information Request seeking records relating to the preparation of Report 2505. That request was denied.

Only after taking those steps did Clayton Watch file a Petition with the Contra Costa County Superior Court seeking review of concerns surrounding Report 2505.

The Petition was ultimately denied. However, the denial was not based on a determination that the underlying concerns lacked merit. Rather, Clayton Watch was advised that available administrative remedies should first be exhausted before judicial intervention would potentially become appropriate.

We followed that guidance.

As a result, Clayton Watch then filed a formal Administrative Complaint through the Civil Grand Jury complaint process, requesting review of the procedures used to gather, verify, review, and approve Report 2505.

It is important to understand that Clayton Watch used the very same Grand Jury complaint process through which concerns regarding local government are brought before the Grand Jury in the first place. Grand Jury investigations do not simply materialize on their own. They begin with information, allegations, complaints, or concerns that are presented to the Grand Jury for consideration.

Whatever information or concerns ultimately led to Report 2505 becoming the subject of an investigation necessarily entered the system through that same process. Clayton Watch sought no special treatment and requested no extraordinary remedies. We simply used the same established procedures available to every resident of Contra Costa County, and asked that our concerns receive the same fair, impartial, and meaningful review afforded to others.

In short, every available avenue — judicial, administrative, legislative, and informational — was pursued before speaking publicly in greater detail.

Why We Went Quiet

Many residents have asked why Clayton Watch appeared to go quiet regarding the Civil Grand Jury matter.

The answer is simple. We were advised to exhaust every available remedy before escalating the matter further, and that is exactly what we did.

We also intentionally refrained from publicly discussing many aspects of the Administrative Complaint because the complaint process emphasizes confidentiality. We believed it was important to respect that process and allow the system an opportunity to review the concerns internally before discussing them publicly.

This has never been about political theater. It has always been about accountability, fairness, accuracy, and protecting the integrity of the public record.

Why This Matters

Civil Grand Jury reports carry significant authority. They influence public opinion, shape political narratives, impact reputations, and become permanent parts of the public record while carrying the appearance of judicial credibility.

It is true that Civil Grand Jury reports are recommendations and are not legally binding. In practice, however, the reports often have a much greater impact.

The Civil Grand Jury gets to fire the first cannon. The report is released, headlines are written, and narratives quickly form in the court of public opinion. Only later do the affected agencies and officials have an opportunity to respond through formal written replies, and by then far fewer people read the responses than read the original headlines.

That reality makes accuracy, fairness, and factual verification especially important. Even though the recommendations themselves are not binding, the public perceptions created by an official Grand Jury report can have lasting consequences for communities, public institutions, and individual reputations.

The concerns raised by Clayton Watch are not about whether the Civil Grand Jury should investigate government. It absolutely should.

The question is whether every institution entrusted with public confidence — including the Civil Grand Jury itself — should be willing to address legitimate concerns regarding accuracy, fairness, and accountability.

We believe the answer is yes.

Where Things Stand Today

At this time, Clayton Watch is consulting with legal counsel regarding potential next steps. Two avenues are under active consideration:

1. Writ of Mandate — seeking judicial review by petitioning the court to compel action, which would name the Civil Grand Jury as the responding party.
2. Legislative Reform — petitioning the State Legislature to change the laws governing the Civil Grand Jury, in order to strengthen oversight, transparency, and accountability within California's Civil Grand Jury system.

In addition, Clayton Watch has contacted the Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office and encouraged it to review whether the information presented in connection with Report 2505 was accurate and properly verified. The integrity of the Civil Grand Jury process depends upon the accuracy of the information presented to it, and upon the public's confidence that official reports are based upon verified facts. (The letter sent to the District Attorney's Office is available for public review below.)

Because transparency matters, we are making the underlying documents available for public review. We encourage residents to read the filings, examine the supporting exhibits, and draw their own conclusions.

📄 Read the Petition Filed with the Superior Court: View the Petition

📄 Read the Administrative Complaint and Supporting Exhibits: View the Complaint

📄 Read the Letter Sent to the District Attorney's Office: View the Letter

Clayton Watch will continue to pursue every appropriate avenue available, including administrative review, consultation with legal counsel regarding a potential Writ of Mandate, and discussions concerning possible legislative reforms. This effort is not about relitigating past disagreements. It is about ensuring that official reports carrying the authority and credibility of the Civil Grand Jury are factually verified, procedurally fair, and free from unsupported narratives or unverified information originating from sources advocating a particular outcome.

Our hope is that, by pursuing this matter responsibly and through the proper channels, future Civil Grand Jury reports affecting Clayton, or any other community, will be guided by accuracy, fairness, and accountability, rather than becoming sources of unnecessary division or avoidable harm to a community's reputation.

As developments occur, we will continue to keep the community informed.

Accountability is not an attack on the Civil Grand Jury. Accountability is what gives the Civil Grand Jury its credibility in the first place.

Acknowledgment

Clayton Watch would like to recognize and thank Gary Hood, Bill Walcutt, and the other members of the Clayton Watch Committee for the many hours spent reviewing public records, examining financial documents, researching applicable laws and procedures, preparing filings, and documenting the issues discussed in this article.

This effort has always been driven by a commitment to facts, fairness, accountability, and the belief that engaged citizens play an important role in promoting transparency and public trust.

Clayton Watch also extends its appreciation to the many residents who have followed this issue, shared information, and encouraged a thoughtful, fact-based discussion about accountability and the integrity of the public record.

— Clayton Watch Political Action Committee

Top Story

Civil Grand Jury Watches Government, But Who’s Watching Them?  

By David King, Diablo Gazette / Photos Added by Clayton Watch 

2025/2026 Civil Grand Jury with the Board of Supervisors

The Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury is annually impaneled to investigate city and county governments, special districts and certain nonprofit corporations to ensure functions are performed in a lawful, economical and efficient manner. Recommendations resulting from these investigations are listed.

This year, a just released report 2602 is a highly critical Civil Grand Jury review of Contra Costa County’s Internal Audit Division (IAD), concluding that the County’s internal auditing system is outdated, lacks independence, and does not comply with professional auditing standards or California law and says the current structure undermines both independence and public accountability.

Among the Findings
The Grand Jury says the County’s internal audit operation has major structural problems.

One of the more egregious findings is the Internal Audit Division has not had an outside quality review in more than 25 years, even though auditing standards require one every 3–5 years.

It cites examples indicating the audit division is functioning in what the report calls a major conflict of interest and “independence impairment.”

Oversight from the Board of Supervisors is described as weak and largely symbolic.

The audit division operates under a governing administrative bulletin written in 1975 that has never been modernized to reflect current standards.

The County does not publicly post completed internal audit reports or annual audit plans online and lacks several standard safeguards expected in modern government auditing.

Jury Recommendations
The Grand Jury recommends sweeping reforms, including:

* Creating a dedicated Audit Committee and adding outside/public financial experts.
* Ending the practice of auditors helping prepare the County’s financial reports. 

* Requiring quarterly reporting to supervisors.
* Publishing audit reports publicly online.
* Bringing the division into compliance with Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) and Government Accountability Office (GAGAS) standards.

The County must respond to the Court regarding recommendations offered by the report.

Last year when the Clayton City Council had to respond to its Civil Grand Jury Report 2505. The Council responded with an emphatic “no” to most of the report’s recommendations, citing the investigators used inaccurate figures, dismissed audited figures and other information provided and misunderstands local government procedures and functions.

In addition, believing the report was detrimental to the City’s reputation, the local Political Action Committee, Clayton Watch, submitted a petition to the Court requesting a correction or amendment to their report.

Did they do it? It doesn’t appear so.

“The new Pinole Civil Grand Jury Report 2604 shows what good oversight looks like: facts, benchmarks, and transparency,” said Gary Hood, a member of the Clayton Watch and Clayton resident who filed the petition.

“Last year’s Clayton report did the opposite. It started with a conclusion, then worked backward and failed badly to support it.

“Maybe it’s time for the Civil Grand Jury to look in the mirror. A watchdog should be held to the same standard it demands of everyone else. Political influence has no place in the process. The public deserves independence, objectivity, and facts. And maybe it’s time someone on the judiciary side of the street did their job. Who watches the watchdog?”   

Memorial Day Belongs to the Fallen, Not the Politicians

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

------------------------------------------------------------ 

Dear Clayton Community:

I attended Memorial Day ceremonies in both Clayton and Pleasant Hill this year, and the contrast was striking. Clayton’s ceremony was extraordinary, and the reason was simple: no politicians spoke.

Instead, we heard from the families who lost a son or daughter. We heard from uniformed personnel who participated meaningfully in the program. The focus stayed exactly where it belonged: on those who died in service to our country. It was profoundly moving in a way these ceremonies too rarely are.

Pleasant Hill, by contrast, followed the pattern Clayton itself has fallen into in past years. A parade of elected officials, most of whom never served, took turns at the microphone. Politicians were seated in the front rows and essentially applauded themselves for showing up. Gold Star families received little recognition. A day meant for solemn remembrance became, in effect, another campaign stop.

This is not a partisan complaint, and I mean no offense to our neighbors in Pleasant Hill, who clearly put care into their event. The problem cuts across parties. Memorial Day is not Veterans Day, when we thank the living. It is not the Fourth of July, when civic speeches are fitting. It is the one day each year set aside specifically to honor Americans who gave their lives, and it deserves to be protected from the gravitational pull of politics. When a congressman, county supervisor, or council member who never wore the uniform takes the podium ahead of a grieving mother, something has gone wrong.

Clayton got it right this year. The families spoke. The service members stood at the center. The dead were remembered as individuals, not as backdrops. I hope our city keeps it exactly this way, and I hope other communities take note. The best thing politicians can do on Memorial Day is sit quietly in the back, listen, and let the day belong to those who earned it.