Clayton Election Update: Council Race Remains Unchanged as Measures M and N Head Toward Defeat

November 13, 2026 | Clayton Watch

The latest Contra Costa County election results, released November 13, show little movement in Clayton's City Council race, while voters continue to reject the proposed 1% sales tax and the renewal of the Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) assessment.

With all five Clayton precincts reporting, Charles Schmidt and Amy Callaghan remain comfortably ahead in the race for two City Council seats. Meanwhile, Measure M faces a decisive defeat, and Measure N continues to fall well short of the two-thirds approval required for passage.

Although additional ballots may still be counted, the latest numbers suggest that the outcome of Clayton's 2026 election is becoming increasingly clear.

City Council: Schmidt and Callaghan Maintain Their Leads

The November 13 results show the following standings:

Candidate	Votes	Percentage
Charles Schmidt	2,966	29.45%
Amy Callaghan	2,857	28.36%
Kim Trupiano	2,156	21.40%
Maria Shulman	2,094	20.79%

Compared with the November 10 update, Schmidt gained 18 votes, Callaghan 15, Trupiano 14, and Shulman 12.

Only 59 additional votes were recorded across the four candidates, leaving their positions unchanged.

Callaghan now leads third-place Trupiano by 701 votes, while Trupiano maintains a narrow 62-vote advantage over Shulman.

Voter turnout in the City Council contest stands at 71.29%, with 6,117 ballots cast out of 8,580 registered voters.

Measure M: Clayton Voters Continue to Reject the Sales Tax

The proposed 1% local sales tax, Measure M, continues to face strong opposition.

November 13 results:

Vote	Total	Percentage
NO	3,345	58.06%
YES	2,416	41.94%

The margin of opposition is now 929 votes.

Measure M was intended to generate additional general-fund revenue for the City of Clayton. Supporters argued that the revenue was needed to address projected budget deficits and maintain city services.

Opponents questioned whether the city had adequately demonstrated the need for another tax, particularly given its existing reserves and concerns about future spending.

The latest results indicate that a substantial majority of participating voters are unwilling to approve the proposed increase.

The message is difficult to ignore: Clayton residents want financial accountability, clear priorities, and convincing justification before being asked to pay more.

That is an interpretation of the vote, but it is one city leaders should seriously consider.

Measure N: Majority Support, but Not Enough to Pass

Measure N, the proposed renewal of Clayton's Landscape Maintenance District assessment, presents a different situation.

Unlike Measure M, Measure N has received more YES votes than NO votes. However, the measure requires a two-thirds majority for approval.

November 13 results:

Vote	Total	Percentage
YES	2,962	51.79%
NO	2,757	48.21%

Measure N currently falls approximately 14.88 percentage points short of the required 66.67% approval threshold.

This is an important distinction.

A narrow majority supports the assessment renewal, but nearly half of those voting oppose it. The measure therefore remains headed toward defeat unless the remaining ballots produce a substantial change.

Measure N involves funding for landscaping and related maintenance within the LMD, including certain public landscape areas, trails, and associated infrastructure.

If the measure ultimately fails, the City Council will need to explain how it intends to address the district's future funding and maintenance obligations.

The challenge will be to establish realistic priorities, identify available funding, and communicate clearly with residents about what services can be maintained.

What Do These Results Mean for Clayton?

The November 13 update points toward two significant developments.

First, the composition of the City Council appears increasingly likely to change, with Schmidt and Callaghan maintaining substantial leads over Trupiano and Shulman.

Second, Clayton voters appear unwilling to approve either of the two revenue measures presented to them.

The distinction between the measures matters. Measure M is being rejected by a clear majority, while Measure N has majority support but not the supermajority required for passage.

Both outcomes, however, would create financial and operational challenges for the city.

Clayton's elected officials will need to confront those challenges with more than promises, projections, or political arguments. Residents deserve a clear explanation of the city's financial condition, its spending priorities, and the consequences of the election results.

Clayton Watch's Perspective

Throughout this election, Clayton Watch has raised questions about city finances, the proposed taxes, candidates' qualifications, and the direction of local government.

The voters have now expressed their preferences, even though the results have not yet been certified.

Regardless of who ultimately takes office, the responsibility of governing Clayton remains the same: protect essential services, spend public money responsibly, and make decisions based on the long-term interests of the community.

The apparent defeat of Measures M and N makes that responsibility even more important.

Clayton does not need another round of political finger-pointing. It needs responsible leadership, financial discipline, and practical solutions.

The election may be nearing its conclusion, but the real work for Clayton's next City Council is only beginning.

The Clayton Watch Team

---

Source: Contra Costa County Elections, November 13, 2026, results supplied to Clayton Watch.

Clayton Election Update: Schmidt and Callaghan Strengthen Their Leads; Measures M and N Remain Below Approval Thresholds

Published November 10, 2026
Latest election results — November 10, 3:12 p.m.

Contra Costa County released its latest election results Tuesday afternoon, providing an updated picture of Clayton's City Council race and two local ballot measures.

Charles J. Schmidt and Amy Callaghan have strengthened their leads for Clayton's two City Council seats, while Measures M and N continue to fall short of the voter approval required for passage.

Additional ballots counted since November 6 have increased the vote totals for all four City Council candidates. The latest results also show increasing opposition to Measure M, while Measure N continues to receive majority support but remains well below the required two-thirds approval threshold.

Clayton City Council Results

Candidate	Votes/	Percentage

Charles J. Schmidt	2,948	29.44%
Amy Callaghan	2,842	28.38%
Kim Trupiano	2,142	21.39%
Maria Shulman	2,081	20.78%

Schmidt continues to lead the field, followed by Callaghan.

Callaghan now leads incumbent Kim Trupiano by 700 votes, an increase from her 580-vote lead on November 6.

With two seats available, Schmidt and Callaghan remain positioned to win if the current standings hold.

Measures M and N: Both Still Falling Short

Measure	Yes	No	Approval

M — 1% Sales Tax	2,399 (41.90%)	3,327 (58.10%)	Simple majority
N — Landscape Maintenance District	2,940 (51.72%)	2,744 (48.28%)	Two-thirds majority

Measure M — Proposed 1% Sales Tax

Measure M continues to face substantial opposition, with 58.10% voting No and 41.90% voting Yes.

The measure would establish an additional 1% local sales tax, projected to generate approximately $1.1 million annually for the City of Clayton.

The No vote now leads by 928 votes, compared with 680 votes in the November 6 report.

Measure M remains below the simple-majority approval requirement.

Measure N — Landscape Maintenance District Renewal

Measure N presents a different situation.

Although 51.72% of voters currently support renewing the Landscape Maintenance District funding, the measure requires a two-thirds majority to pass.

That leaves Measure N approximately 14.95 percentage points short of the required approval threshold.

The measure would renew funding for the maintenance of Clayton's open spaces, trails, landscaping, medians, trees, and related services for another 10 years.

Support for Measure N has declined slightly, from 52.91% on November 6 to 51.72% in the latest report.

Clayton Voter Turnout

The November 10 election report shows:

Category	Total
Registered voters	8,580
Ballots cast	6,077
Voter turnout	70.83%

What Happens Next?

Contra Costa County continues processing ballots from the November 3 election.

The latest results strengthen the leads held by Schmidt and Callaghan. Both Measures M and N remain on track to fail unless subsequent vote counts significantly change the results.

Although the outcome is becoming clearer, the election results remain unofficial until the county completes its canvass and certifies the election.

Clayton Watch will continue monitoring the official results and provide additional updates as more ballots are counted.

The Clayton Watch Team

CLAYTON WATCH | ELECTION COMMENTARY

Clayton’s Election: Enough of the Misinformation, Personal Attacks, and Political Games

---

What Has Happened to Our Small Town?

We are deeply disappointed and disgusted by the direction this election has taken. Allegations involving fake Facebook accounts, accusations of fraud, claims that people are felons, charges of racism and white privilege, and the constant dismissal of opposing viewpoints as “lies” have turned a discussion about Clayton’s future into an ugly personal conflict.

These are serious accusations. Where is the evidence?

To those making unsubstantiated accusations: You know who you are. Your public comments speak for themselves. It’s time to grow up.

Why Is This Happening?

Political influence and control of City Hall.

Clayton has experienced significant disagreements over development, city finances, leadership, and the influence of community organizations. When political relationships and priorities change, those who previously held influence may feel their interests are threatened.

Is this about protecting Clayton’s future, or about regaining political influence?

That question deserves examination based on evidence, not assumptions about anyone’s motives.

City Hall belongs to Clayton residents, not any political faction, organization, or group of longtime insiders.

---

Peter Cloven: Your Sneaky and Creepy Photographs Have Gone Too Far

We are particularly troubled by reports of former Council member Peter Cloven taking unsolicited photographs around town and sharing them with others alongside captions that Clayton Watch and the public know are false and misleading.

We find the reported behavior intrusive, inappropriate, and frankly disturbing when photographs are used to misrepresent people or events. Some have described his actions as creepy.

Cloven is reportedly an elder at his church, a position associated with honesty, integrity, and leadership. That makes the concerns about the accuracy of his public commentary particularly disappointing.

Peter, if your statements are accurate, provide the evidence. If they aren’t, correct the record, or go away.

A former elected official should understand the responsibility that comes with public communication.

Jeff Wilson and Clayton’s Facebook Groups

Jeff Wilson, identified as an administrator of the private Clayton Residents Facebook group, has questions to answer about its moderation practices.

Wilson has reportedly been involved with Clayton Rotary since 2018, serving in leadership and fundraising roles, including the Fun Run and community Pancake Breakfast.

Yet Clayton Watch has serious concerns about hateful, offensive, and misleading comments appearing in the group he administers.

Jeff, why have the posts we’ve identified been permitted to remain? What responsibility do you accept for enforcing your group’s standards?

Similar concerns have been raised about Clayton Confidential and Clayton Concerts, including the moderation practices of A.J. Chippero, reportedly associated with Clayton Concerts.

To members of these groups: Take a close look at what is being published. If you find the content unacceptable, report it, speak up, or leave the group.

Membership alone does not imply agreement with every post, but administrators should be accountable for how reported abuse is handled.

---

The Hostility Must Stop

The personal attacks and political hostility surrounding this election have become deeply concerning.

If this nonsense continues to escalate, someone could get hurt. No City Council seat is worth that.

Disagreement is part of democracy. Threats, intimidation, and unsupported accusations have no place in Clayton.

Candidates, former elected officials, community organizations, and social media administrators should all be held to the same standard of accuracy and accountability.

Clayton Deserves Better

In a few days, the election will be over. The signs will come down, the votes will be counted, and we will still be neighbors.

But the damage caused by personal attacks and misinformation can last much longer.

- Enough of the accusations without proof.
- Enough of the misleading commentary.
- Enough of the political games.

If you have the facts, present them. If you don’t, stop making accusations.

Clayton belongs to its residents, and our community deserves better.

The Clayton Watch Team

Top Story!

ENOUGH OF THE POLITICAL GAMES

CLAYTON DESERVES BETTER

A Message from Clayton Watch Before Election Day

With Election Day approaching on November 3, Clayton voters have an important decision to make.

Beyond the campaign slogans, endorsements, and political disagreements, one question matters most:

Who is prepared to lead Clayton responsibly into the future?

Throughout this campaign, Clayton Watch has raised questions about city finances, campaign contributions, housing development, public safety, community involvement, and the qualifications of those seeking a seat on our City Council.

Some questions have received thoughtful responses. Others have been met with accusations, dismissive social media comments, or responses that leave the original concerns unresolved.

As voters, we deserve better.

---

PROMISES ARE EASY. RESULTS MATTER

Clayton faces real challenges. Our city must manage its finances, maintain essential services, address development pressures, and protect the quality of life residents value.

Those responsibilities require more than campaign slogans or promises to bring people together.

They require preparation, sound judgment, financial understanding, and a willingness to make difficult decisions.

When candidates discuss additional revenue, voters deserve to know what they have in mind. When they criticize city operations, they should identify specific problems and realistic solutions. When they promise change, they should explain what that change would accomplish and how they intend to deliver it.

Recognizing a problem is not the same as knowing how to solve it.

POLITICAL ALLIANCES DON'T EQUAL QUALIFICATIONS

One of the most disappointing aspects of this election has been the tendency to turn political disagreements into personal battles.

Endorsements, friendships, and affiliations may tell voters who supports a candidate. They do not establish whether that candidate is prepared to serve on the City Council.

Political disagreements should never become an excuse to divide neighbors into opposing camps.

It should never be “us against them” or “them against us.”

Clayton isn't a political battleground. It's our home.

Every candidate deserves to be evaluated on the same standards: experience, community involvement, understanding of city issues, integrity, and the ability to work constructively with others.

QUESTIONS DESERVE ANSWERS

Clayton Watch provided all four City Council candidates an opportunity to answer the same seven questions, and their responses were published without editing.

We encourage residents to read those answers and compare them with each candidate's public statements, accomplishments, and proposals.

Look closely at what candidates say about Measures M and N, future taxes, development, city spending, and public safety.

• Are they offering specific solutions or general assurances?
• Do their positions remain consistent?
• Can their claims be supported by public records?

These are reasonable questions, not personal attacks.

And the same expectation of accuracy should apply to Clayton Watch and everyone else participating in the public discussion.

ONE FINAL THOUGHT

On November 3, voters will decide who should help lead Clayton through the coming years.

That decision should not be based on who has the loudest supporters, the most endorsements, or the most effective social media campaign.

It should be based on who has demonstrated the knowledge, judgment, character, and commitment necessary to serve the entire community.

Enough of the political games. Enough of the accusations. Enough of the empty rhetoric.

Clayton deserves informed leadership, honest answers, and people willing to put the community ahead of political alliances.

The election is temporary. The consequences of our choices will last for years.

MAKE YOUR DECISION COUNT

The Clayton Watch Team

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