Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury - Letter from Clayton Watch 6-17-25

To the Clayton Community,

We are reaching out to inform you of a matter of serious concern regarding the recently issued Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury report on the City of Clayton. Following a careful and detailed review, we have identified substantial evidence that the report is deeply flawed, containing factual inaccuracies, omissions, and misleading conclusions.

Given the significance of these issues, Clayton Watch has formally submitted our concerns to the Court and the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. At this time, we are not aware of any further action taken by our City Council beyond submitting the response required by law.

We believe this matter deserves prompt and thoughtful attention from county officials. At the very least, we expect the professional courtesy of a response acknowledging our concerns and outlining any steps that may be taken.

We will continue to keep the community informed as we receive updates.

Thank you for your continued support.

The Clayton Watch Team

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

Letter to the CC Court and Board of Supervisor

June 17, 2025


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, factual 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 factual 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:
In September 2024, former Councilmember Peter Cloven acknowledged receiving a Grand Jury letter and noted that similar letters were placed in all council members’ mailboxes.

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 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

Cc: Clayton City Council and Staff
City Manager, City of Clayton
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors

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

After waiting patiently for over 30 days without receiving any response, we issued a follow-up letter. As public officials, these individuals have a responsibility to acknowledge concerns raised by the community. Failing to respond is not only disappointing, it’s a disregard for the people they serve. Please see the follow-up message below.

July 15, 2025


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: Follow-Up Request for Oversight and Clarification - Clayton Grand Jury Report

Dear Judge Mockler and Grand Jury Foreperson,

Clayton Watch is a registered political action committee representing residents of Clayton who share a strong commitment to transparency, accountability, and public trust in local government. On behalf of our members and supporters, we are following up regarding the recent Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury report titled “Clayton: Small City, Big Concerns.”

On June 17, 2025, we submitted a detailed letter via certified mail, outlining several concerns related to the report, including factual inaccuracies, potential conflicts of interest, possible breaches of confidentiality, and questions of impartiality. To date, we have not received any acknowledgment or response.

We understand the demands on your offices and appreciate the complexity of Grand Jury matters. However, given the significance of the issues raised and their impact on public confidence in the Grand Jury process, we respectfully request a formal response. As public officials serving the residents of Contra Costa County, we trust you share our belief that open communication and accountability are essential to maintaining public trust.

If this matter has been referred to another agency or office for review, we would appreciate being informed.

We kindly request a reply by Friday, July 25, 2025, so that we may share any updates with our members and the broader Clayton community.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your response and appreciate your service to the community.

Sincerely,

Gary Hood
Clayton Watch
Political Action Committee

cc: Clayton City Council and Staff

City Manager, City of Clayton

Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Hon. Christopher R. Bowen - Presiding Judge
Sarah Lind - Court Executive Officer

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

Still waiting for a reply from someone at the County.