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review of Contra Costa County’s Internal Audit Division (IAD), concluding that the County’s internal auditing system is outdated, lacks independence, and does not comply with professional auditing standards or California law and says the current structure undermines both independence and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?”
* 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.
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?”
The Civil Grand Jury's latest report warns about the dangers of weak oversight, poor accountability, and a lack of independent review within county government.
ReplyDeleteIronically, those are some of the same concerns many Clayton residents have raised about the Civil Grand Jury itself.
When a government department is wrong, there are audits, appeals, and corrective actions. When a Grand Jury report contains disputed facts or questionable conclusions, citizens are largely told to accept it and move on.
No public institution should be beyond scrutiny, including the watchdogs.
If accountability matters, it has to run both ways.
Clayton Watch was right for speaking up. The report on Clayton was a political hit piece - no doubt about it. -Robert
ReplyDeleteThere is little doubt that the “report” was nothings more than a hit job put together by all friends of #justonecouncilmember, the defunct newspaper editor, and the political party of Clayton masquerading as a nonprofit. And if you have the right friends on a civil grand jury you can make anything stick! Who checks for those conflicts of interest? All you need to do right now to prove it was a hit job is read the report on Pinole and compare it the report they did on Clayton. Night and day! Facts vs made up things to harm our town.
DeleteVery true. That particular councilmember, defunct newspaper editor, and the so-called non-profit think they run the town and everyone in it. The best thing that could happen is if that council member and their family left; no one needs the trouble and negativity they bring. The masquerading non-profit seems to be on a redemption tour, which is a joke; they should lose the non-profit status for the nonsense they have pulled. The defunct editor, well, she is as negative as ever despite her illness, which makes you scratch your head. One might think she would be grateful to be alive.
DeleteWhat’s the next step for Clayton Watch? Does anybody know?
ReplyDeleteThe Grand Jury says everyone needs oversight. Fair enough. The question is: who's minding the watchdog, and why does it seem nobody on the judicial side of the street wants that job? The whole county system is messed up. I’m so glad their tax measure failed. They’re all a bunch of lazy SOB’s collecting a paycheck. The report on the county proves just that. .-Howard the Handyman
ReplyDeleteHas anyone noticed the buddy-buddy relationship between the Clayton supervisor and Holly Tillman? Why do you think he gave out money to two of her causes? Residents need to pay attention to her backroom dealings. There isn’t a thing transparent about her!
DeleteThis is another example of Clayton Watch reporting facts and pursuing the truth to the benefit of us all! It is insane that an unknown group of people (Grand Jury) come to conclusions and produce an inaccurate report based on incorrect information, and then refuse to make any corrections or even acknowledge they based their report on false statements from people with an agenda. Thank you Clayton Watch.
ReplyDeleteThe primary oversight of a Civil Grand Jury generally comes from three places:
ReplyDelete• The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court
• Legal counsel assigned to advise the Grand Jury
• The Grand Jury itself
In Contra Costa County, that means the responsibility ultimately rests with the Court, its advisory counsel, and the Grand Jury members charged with ensuring accuracy and fairness.
The troubling question is this: if those safeguards were working as intended, how did so many disputed facts and concerns about the Clayton report make it into a public document in the first place?
At some point, "trusting the process" is not enough. Oversight requires verification, not assumptions. If accountability, fact-checking, and quality control are standards the Grand Jury expects from every public agency it investigates, then those same standards should apply to the Grand Jury itself.
Perhaps it's time for someone on the judicial side of the street to ask whether the oversight system is actually functioning as intended. It’s apparent they trusted Peter Appert, the foreperson, more than they should have. Were there potential conflicts of interest? Sure sounds like it. -Retired Attorney
The report contains factual claims that are contradicted by audited records, official minutes, and documented actions. If the Civil Grand Jury expects transparency and accountability from local governments, it should welcome the same scrutiny of its own work. Change is needed!
ReplyDeleteIf you do not like what the Grand Jury is doing, then join and understand how it works and make changes you feel are needed.
ReplyDeleteI think that's exactly what Clayton Watch is trying to do: bring accountability to a process that appears to have lacked sufficient oversight. What happened in Clayton raised serious questions about verification, supervision, and transparency. Those questions aren't going away.
DeleteMany of the people who were once eager to defend the report have become remarkably quiet as additional facts have surfaced. It will be interesting to see what Clayton Watch does next. From what I understand, concerns have also been forwarded to the District Attorney's Office. If nothing else, this entire situation has highlighted the need for stronger oversight and public accountability. -Arlene
So join the GJ and make changes instead of standing on the sidelines making accusations. Or threatening to get the DA involved.
DeleteThe Grand Jury said that the council should look for ways to increase revenue. The council's response was that was already done. And now we are looking for ways to increase revenue, adding taxes. Was the GJ right?
ReplyDeleteFrom my recollection, and after watching the council meetings, the Civil Grand Jury got this one wrong. The City Council was actively discussing and pursuing multiple ways to increase revenue, including fee updates, business license enforcement, contract renegotiations, investment income strategies, and a possible sales tax measure. A sales tax increase was one option among several—not the only option.
DeleteThat's why many residents continue to question the report's conclusion that the City "declined to take any revenue enhancement measures." The public record appears to show otherwise.
And here's another question: the Clayton Business and Community Association was subject to a fee increase, and its name appeared throughout the report more than 15 times. Given that level of attention, it's fair to ask whether anyone associated with that organization had input into, influence over, or involvement with the report. I'm not making an accusation, I'm simply asking questions that deserve answers. Transparency works both ways.
Inquiring minds want to know. “Hello Carl, Holly, Tamara, Ed M, Ed H, Peter, Keith, and Brett.”
Also worth noting is which #onlyCouncilMember voted no on exploring revenue ideas in April of 2024.
DeleteHas revenue increased?
DeleteThat same vote #onlymecouncilmember also said multiple times that she didn't have time to read the city budget but just wanted to go ahead and do a $400.00 parcel tax and a .05-cent sales tax increase. That council member doesn’t like to do hard work. She is always focused on photo ops, what title she can gain in whatever group, and joining all the crab feeds she can. She should really work for Clayton and not all the outside interests. It‘s interesting how that council member is actively ignoring certain residents in the community. If she doesn’t think you can advance her, do something for her, she will not acknowledge you. That says a lot about who she is at heart; be aware, Clayton. A snake is always a snake.
DeleteIf the council looked at revenue opportunities previously why are we now raising taxes. I think the intent of the GJ report was to eliminate the gap between expenses and revenue. Apparently that has not been done and hence the tax measures. Hard to see how the GJ report was wrong in that sense.
DeleteIf that was the intent why was CBCA mentioned so many times? Why did they try to insinuate Brown Act violations? Why did they exaggerate the number of managers the city had? Why did make up fake numbers instead of using the audited results that refuted their conclusion? ANSWER: Becasue their real intent was to do a political hit job! Why is no one looking into the possible conflict of interest between a certain newspaper editor and her connection to the CGJ? Maybe there is a juror out there willing to say something?
Deletehttps://legalclarity.org/california-penal-code-953d-grand-jury-secrecy-rules/
DeleteThe CBCA was mentioned so many times because the CGJ piece was a political hit job meant to destroy the city. Everyone remembers the defunct paper stating, “Clayton is in decline.” It was all because the CBCA lost control of the city and the free ride they had on not paying market-rate fees for city use in a 15-year-old, outdated contract! Who was the owner of that defunct paper, and also a friend of the GJ foreman? Are you putting the pieces together yet? Who do you think filed the paperwork? Another CBCA loyalist who had his boxers in a twist about contract cancellation and was a terrible attorney. Also, a self-absorbed former first-time city manager who was clearly over his head and in the pocket of the pompous Cloven and #voteonlymecouncilmember just wanted to push increased taxes anyway he could, so he could hire more and more people instead of looking at the books. Remember the council meeting where that city manager flat-out refused to provide the worksheets to Jeff Wan because he knew he was using false and inaccurate numbers for the budget. These are just a few of the self-absorbed people involved in the CGJ report who are still meddling in city business. Why the hell did Clayton re-elect that toxic #voteonlymecouncilmember? She only does things to benefit herself! She is a toxic, self-absorbed woman who likes to play victim when she doesn’t get her own way. The best thing that could happen is if her entire family left Clayton
DeleteAgree, and she is a horrible representative of Clayton. My suggestion is that she be removed or banned from participating in events representing Clayton until the end of her term. It’s factual to say she has lied, misrepresented Clayton, and brought destructive outside entities into this town.
DeleteMaybe ClaytonWatch should post the other article from the Gazette where Jeff Wan discusses the need for new taxes due to the structural deficit and without new taxes the city would reduce what they could do. Exactly what was said in the GJ report last year.
ReplyDeleteNice try! However guess what, the city was looking into generating new revenue BEFORE the civil gran jury report! Go watch the April 2024 meetings! Along with that, the fee schedule was revised in 2023. Who fought that revenue source? The CBCA, Holly Tillman, Peter Cloven and Tamara Steiner. Guess who is probably responsible for the complaint to the civil grand jury? Most likely someone in that group! The civil grand jury report came one over one year past the vote in April of 2024 to consider new revenue sources. Way to go Monday morning quarterbacks! Contrary to the fantasy you want to sell us, the civil grand jury report DID NOT SAY that city needed to pass Bret Prebula's parcel tax and sales tax right away! The city was already doing what was necessary! The civil grand jury report was nothing more than a political hit job. But go ahead, keep trying to pretend that group who couldn't even get the numbers right is somehow right. And don't forget who voted against looking into new revenue sources in April of 2024!!!! The same one who didn't vote for a budget two years in a row! Another Jeff Wan hater trying to spin more lies.
DeleteIf the city was doing what was necessary why is the sales tax back now. What has changed for it to make sense now?
DeleteNothing has changed. The only thing that wasn’t done was the due diligence.
DeleteAgree. Don’t let the haters spin it. The grand jury report was WRONG!
ReplyDeleteThe idea the civil grand jury was trying to balance revnues against expenditures is laughable. If that’s what their intent was why did they have so many other findings that had nothing to do with finances. And those of you who insist they were right must like working with fake numbers. Bret wanted to rush into a sales tax without looking at what we were spending on, how much we had in the checkbook with an intent to grow staff. All of that has been rejected. The council will be voting to place a sales tax on the ballot after looking into all of the finances. The civil grand jury folks never looked into any of that and reached conclusions with false numbers that even they can’t explain. Those of you who insist they were right are using the broken clock is right once a day logic. The rest of their so called findings were nothing but a political hit job. And the last thing for all of you to keep in mind, the council does pass the sales tax, the voters do. You can’t go ask the voters for more money without first seeing how much you have in the bank. Under Wolfe and Cloven, the books hadn’t been reconciled for 18 months. How convenient the civil grand jury left that fact out of their report! Maybe because that didn’t fit the narrative a certain newspaper editor was trying to create. Maybe that’s why the civil grand jury ignored the audited numbers because it would put Wolfe and Cloven under a bad light. There are too many instances of actions by the civil grand jury that point to some sort of political hit job. Clayton Watch is right to ask who is watching them? The entire report read like it was written by our now defunct local newspaper editor who was out on a vendetta against the people she hated on this council.
ReplyDeleteA common criticism is that the report gets headlines while responses receive little attention. The system needs to be changed.
ReplyDeleteThe cgj system is flawed. "If a Civil Grand Jury report can criticize a city based on facts, there should be a fair and transparent process to correct the record when those facts are later shown to be inaccurate. Accountability should run both ways.”
ReplyDeleteThe Civil Grand Jury system needs serious reform. These jurors have the power to investigate public agencies, issue public reports, and make recommendations that can affect reputations and policy, yet the qualifications are minimal. In many cases, all that's required is a high school diploma, basic eligibility, and a willingness to serve. With that much authority and so little oversight, it's fair to ask whether the system has enough safeguards to ensure accuracy, accountability, and fairness. When a grand jury gets it wrong, there should be a meaningful process to correct the record.
ReplyDeleteWhen a system grants significant authority to people whose primary qualification is a high school diploma and a pulse, accountability and oversight become more important, not less.
DeleteSounds about right.
DeleteAnd they are the same age as most of our Congress people! The other thing that isn't good is that there are former politicians who get on these "juries." Nothing like former politicians who are friends with other politicians and have political vendettas from the past they want to settle. Former politicians also would be close friends with newspaper editors wouldn't they? Especially if they have the same whacked out politics!
Delete^ That right there, sound familiar Clayton?
DeleteWhere is evidence that past politicians and tried to settle past vendettas through the gj?
DeleteWhere's the evidence they didn't? The burden shouldn't be on citizens to prove a negative. When a body has the power to investigate others, issue public reports, and influence public opinion, it should be transparent enough to demonstrate its own independence and objectivity.
DeleteAgree
DeleteWhat report are you referring to that show a past politician using that to settle a vendetta.
DeleteJust look at the names of the civil grand jury members and will hopefully understand the comment.
DeleteWhy the obscurity? If you are going to make accusations, then make them overtly.
DeleteThen they should be willing to stand behind their findings instead of hiding behind a system that offers little meaningful accountability. If the facts are accurate, defend them. If they're not, correct them.
DeleteThe Presiding Judge, supervising attorney, and grand jury foreperson all have a responsibility to ensure reports are fair, factual, and properly vetted before they are released to the public. When a report contains errors or misleading information, simply pointing out that the recommendations are nonbinding misses the point entirely.
These reports can influence elections, tax measures, public opinion, and reputations. The consequences are real. A system that can publicly criticize cities, organizations, and individuals while providing no effective mechanism to challenge or correct mistakes is a system that deserves scrutiny.
Clayton Watch deserves credit for bringing these concerns into the open and forcing a discussion about transparency, accountability, and oversight. After all, if government watchdogs expect accountability from everyone else, they should be willing to accept the same standard themselves. -Matt
Apparently, all you need is a high school diploma and a pulse to serve on the Civil Grand Jury.
ReplyDeleteWhat a petty comment
DeleteTruth is petty?
DeleteAbout the same as being a city council member, you moron!! Education level has nothing to do with an ability to serve the community. Yes it is petty
DeleteThat’s right, the same as being a city council member, hence past politicians who can’t seem to get off the government’s teet end up on civil grand juries to do more of the same as when they were in office!
DeleteBy definition the civil grand jury is independent and objective
ReplyDeleteThen why did they choose to run with fake numbers about Clayton’s finances instead of audited numbers that were 100% available to them? Why did they use false data? So in your mind a jury can convict someone with false evidence as long as they say they are independent and objective.
DeleteWhere did the so called fake numbers come from.
DeleteWe would all like to know where the fake numbers came from. But they don’t have to tell us. They just used them and made a report that without a doubt was meant to tarnish the city so a certain newspaper editor could write negative articles about who is on council. Funny how she folded shortly afterwards. The civil grand jury CHOSE to ignore the real audited numbers and opted to write a report founded on false fake numbers. When the council met to discuss the response to the civil grand jury, one of the comments from the public was, “someone up there doesn’t like you.” That described what took place better than anything. Yet we still have people defending the civil grand jury and refusing to see this was nothing more than a political hit job. It needs to be investigated. All agencies should be concerned they can be tarnished by a group that operates in secret and can use false evidence to make up reports. And if there was any kind of foul play in the report about Clayton, those involved need to answer for their actions.
DeleteI don't understand all this CGJ conversation. The process is the CGJ investigates issues, do research, talk to people, confirm their facts. The, if warranted they write a report. The agency the report is directed to then has a chance to respond to findings and recommendations. They are not required to implement anything. That is exactly what has happened here.
ReplyDeleteI have a problem with any agency tarnishing a person's, organization's, or public agency's reputation without first ensuring the facts are accurate. Misinformation can have real consequences—it can influence elections, affect tax measures, damage public trust, and shape public opinion for years to come. Suggesting that it's not a serious issue because recommendations don't have to be implemented misses the larger problem. The real concern is the impact that inaccurate information can have on the public and the decisions they make.
DeleteConfirm their facts. Thats pretty funny. They get to fire off their cannons first and expect the public to give the same attention to the agencies response. If their facts are wrong, they should be corrected and make major headlines in the local media. Fair is fair
ReplyDeleteCity Manager repeats what he said two years ago when coming in. Clayton does not have an expense issue; we have a revenue problem. Two years later we are considering sales tax increase. The GJ said the same thing a year ago. You all did not like it because you thought it was coming from Tillman, Prebula, Steiner, Wollfe, etc. Now it is coming from Wan, Diaz, Trupiano so it might be OK. The excuse that these people have done their "due diligence" is weak.
ReplyDeleteDuring that time, so-called Mayor Peter Cloven and Holly Tillman were at the helm. By their own admission, the City's checkbook had not been balanced in more than 18 months. That's not leadership—that's financial negligence. And let's not forget the $50,000 that disappeared from the City's checkbook and was seemingly ignored by Peter Cloven.
DeleteSo your argument simply doesn't hold water. Please stop with the nonsense and wake up. The Civil Grand Jury report actually said the opposite of what you're claiming. It criticized the City for not pursuing other revenue streams, which was simply false. Read the report.
The reality is that Cloven, Tillman, and Bret Prebula were either unaware of, or unwilling to do, the hard work required to address the City's financial challenges. Meanwhile, our current city manager and four council members have been doing exactly that—updating fees, improving revenue collection, renegotiating contracts, strengthening investment policies, and taking concrete steps to stabilize the City's finances.
Facts matter. You can't ignore them simply because they're inconvenient.
Very true, facts do matter, and the facts are Wolfe, Cloven, Tillman, and Prebula DID NOT examine the financial books. Prebula was using regurgitated wish-list numbers from Schwartz. Remember the refusal to hand over the worksheets? He refused because there were none! That whole group was more interested in CBCA and self-promotion than in doing any actual city work. It was always the "look at me and pat myself on the back" era. They were among the laziest, most self-centered, and most pompous council members, uninterested in real work. The unfortunate part is we are still stuck with the abatrose around our neck, Tillman.
DeleteWho is ignoring facts here? The civil grand jury! The city was exploring new revenue options! And they completely ignored the factual audited numbers and used made up numbers. Bret Prebula was in a hurry to pass a parcel tax and a sales tax, expand staff and grow government. He was not interested in looking at the expenses. The city still has an expense problem regardless of whether the voters pass this sales tax or not. Under Bret Prebula, Cloven Tillman and Wolfe, the city would be back asking for more money many times because they weren't interested in getting expenses under control. Those are the facts and they are a big inconvenience for the Prebula Cloven Tillman Wolfe apologists.
DeleteIf there is an expense problem, where can expenses be trimmed? Police salaries?
DeleteFamiliar with TDS.?...You all have PTCSDS (Prebula, Tillman, Cloven, Schwartz Derangement Syndrome)
ReplyDeleteThree down, one to go. The people you mentioned in your post were terrible business people. Everyone knew it, but the ones that like them only agreed with them because they had the same political agenda. Nice try
DeleteDemocracy is not represented by having one side in power, but in the ability for different points of view to co-exist. That does not exist in Clayton
DeleteFunny comment considering all those you mentioned had WDS (Wan Derangement Syndrome). The hatred for Jeff Wan by all those mentioned was all consuming. This is the same crowd that goes around saying love is love and do the right thing. Laughable!
DeleteThe love is love group displays a hostile attitude towards differing viewpoints. They are characterized by intolerance and confrontational behavior, demonstrating little acceptance or respect for opinions that do not align with their own beliefs. Their approach often lacks empathy and understanding, creating an atmosphere of exclusion rather than inclusivity.
DeleteHello, Holly Tillman and her groupies!
DeleteThis comment: Democracy is not represented by having one side in power, but in the ability for different points of view to co-exist. That does not exist in Clayton. Democracy when Wolfe Cloven and Tillman were the majority was 3 wolves and two sheep voting on what was for dinner!
DeleteClayton Watch should go away!!! One side garbage.
ReplyDeleteIt kind of looks like Clayton Watch is allowing both sides to comment. If it was only one-sided, your comment would have never seen the light of day. Mr. one sentence wonder, you may want to add some commentary with facts supporting your brilliant accusation.
DeleteComments...but initial posts likely from Mr Hood are ALWAYS one sided.
DeleteClayton watch is a treasure. They are doing the job that the defunct newspaper should have been doing, but were only posting Tamara's biased garbage. Thanks, Clayton Watch!
DeleteAlright genius, the article above is not written by Gary, it is written by the Diablo Gazette. The article below is not written by Gary, it was written by a community member. The article prior to that one is not written by Gary, it was written by Mayor Wan. The article prior to that one is not written by Gary, it was written by the Clayton Watch Team.
DeleteI guess you just struck out again. It sucks when you get hit with facts. Want to try a third time?
Love it! Facts matter, but not to some people who keep trying to push old narratives.
DeleteFacts are facts. Read the archives and decide for yourself. Those who claimed to be leading the City were actually driving it into the ground. Today, we're fortunate to have a City Council and staff focused on fixing the problems instead of creating them. Thank goodness Clayton Watch came along when it did.
ReplyDeleteAmen!
ReplyDelete