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 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.

Featured in the Diablo Gazette, May 1, 2026

City Council Correspondence: The excerpts below have been sourced from the Diablo Gazette to share with the Clayton Watch Community. You can access the article in the Diablo Gazette's website by following this link:  

https://www.diablogazette.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Diablo-Gazette-May-2026-D1.pdf

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.

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

What the Results Mean for Our City 

by Jeff Wan, Mayor

Restoring What We Already Own

Cities often focus on what is new. New projects are visible and easy to point to. But the more important work is maintaining what we already have. Our City is responsible for a wide range of public assets, including the library, roads, parks, sidewalks, trails, and open space. All of these require regular care. Paint fades, trees grow, road markings wear down, and infrastructure ages. That is expected. The issue is how we manage that responsibility.

A System Without a Schedule
Since 2019, I have raised concerns that still exist today. The City does not have a comprehensive inventory or maintenance schedule for many of its assets. We have not clearly defined how often key items should be inspected or maintained. How often should the Library be painted? How often should trees along trails be assessed? How frequently should road markings or sidewalks be reviewed? Too often, the answer is unclear. Instead, the City has relied on an ad hoc approach. When a problem becomes visible, it gets addressed. When it does not, it can go years without attention. This creates gaps where routine maintenance is missed and small issues grow into larger ones. At the same time, the City has increased its reserves. That is a positive step and reflects fiscal discipline. But it also highlights a tradeoff. When maintenance is deferred, costs shift into the future while needs continue to build.

A Shift Toward Action
That approach is starting to change. With new leadership and a renewed focus, staff have begun identifying and addressing deferred maintenance across the City. An initial list of projects was recently presented. It is not complete, but it marks a shift toward a more proactive approach. Work is already underway. Weed abatement and landscape maintenance have expanded across major corridors, hillsides, and open space, with more areas scheduled in the coming weeks. Crews are also addressing core needs such as irrigation repairs, removal of dead vegetation, replanting, fence repairs, and ongoing tree trimming throughout the community and along trails. We are also addressing a backlog of safety-related items, including curb painting, replacement of street signs, roadway reflectors, and refreshed striping at intersections and crosswalks. These improvements directly affect visibility and safety for drivers and pedestrians.

Investing in Longer-Term Improvements
Alongside this work, the City is advancing more significant infrastructure projects. We are moving toward more durable roadway repairs through a new pothole contract focused on longer-lasting solutions. This will be supported by a broader pavement project planned for Summer and Fall 2026. Pedestrian safety is also a priority. Downtown improvements will include raised crossings and intersections, along with flashing beacon systems to increase visibility at key locations. Beyond downtown, an ADA-accessible pathway between Four Oaks Lane and Pine Hollow is in design and supported by dedicated funding. Trail improvements, including repairs to the Cardinet Trail, are also moving forward. These efforts reflect a more coordinated approach to safety, accessibility, and long-term reliability.

From Reactive to Routine
The goal is simple. We need to move from an ad hoc system to a scheduled one. That means creating a clear inventory of City assets, setting maintenance intervals, and planning for these needs on a recurring basis. With that structure in place, we can manage costs more effectively and predictably. We have made progress in building reserves. Now we need to apply that same discipline to maintaining what those reserves are meant to protect. Taking care of what we already own may not draw attention, but it is one of the most important responsibilities we have as a City.

Switching gears

I want to announce the opening of a new local business, Woof Gang Bakery & Grooming - a neighborhood pet store, offering full-service grooming and a wide selection of nutritious pet treats and food. They are at 5433 Clayton Road Suite M. https://woofgangbakery.com/pages/locations/clayton