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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I would not vote for Peter under any circumstances. He exhibits vindictive behavior and an overly pompous attitude. For example, when you don’t adhere to his directives, he retaliates by punishing you, as evidenced by the comments he has made from the Dias criticizing Jeff Wan and others. As members of Clayton, we do not need leadership characterized by such vindictiveness and arrogance.
ReplyDeleteInstead of posting negative info re:Cloven why not post positive info for the candidates you want elected. Negative campaigns!!. One of the major problems with our elections.
ReplyDeleteLet’s wait and see who submits their papers.
DeleteThat negative info to which you're referring is Cloven's record. Other records will also be posted. It's not the fault of Clayton Watch that Cloven was a horrible mayor and councilman.
DeleteI'll bet my bottom dollar that Clayton Watch will thoroughly investigate everyone who's running. Anyone with any baggage had better watch out. This group doesn't mess around.
DeleteIf you want something sugar coated, go eat a donut. The reality is that Cloven is a bad apple.
DeleteCloven’s a blow hard.
ReplyDeleteThis post is interesting, everything I’ve read is true. Why would someone like Cloven want to run again? It can’t be that he wants to help the city. It’s 100% about him and trying to save his reputation.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this guy should be looked into regarding the $50,000 since he didn't want to discuss it. His reluctance to talk about it makes the whole situation seem suspicious.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that our city manager, Rena Schwartz, left a short time later. Someone should take a close look at the city's finances and determine what happened to the $50,000. The public deserves transparency and a clear accounting of where that money went.
ReplyDeleteWell...if we don't have an accounting of the $50K then it would seem unfair to point fingers at Cloven, or anyone else.
DeleteI'm glad the “Clayton Pioneer” is gone. It feels much quieter around town without it. In my opinion, the paper often seemed more focused on controversy and attention-grabbing headlines than on bringing the community together. Whether that was to attract readers or advertisers, it often felt like it created more division than constructive conversation.
ReplyDeleteAgree 100%
DeleteI strongly concur. The Pioneer was completely toxic in every aspect. If you weren't friends with Tamara, she ensured you received negative publicity. The last election is proof—only one candidate advertised with her, despite her favoritism toward her close ally, who appeared in every issue regardless of the circumstances. I’m glad the Pioneer is gone; it was never a genuine newspaper, but a gutter rag.
DeletePeter seemed more interested in shaking hands and playing bocce than in understanding the City's finances. In my opinion, he spent more time cultivating his public image than providing the leadership and financial oversight Clayton needed. If he runs again, I'll be voting no.
ReplyDeleteHe’s a pretty plastic guy in my opinion. My wife met him at Clayton cleans up and said he was a strange person.
DeleteThis election isn't just about campaign promises, it's about a candidate's record. Voters should consider whether Peter Cloven demonstrated the financial oversight and accountability expected of a mayor. When the City's books went unreconciled and questions arose about the City's finances, residents deserved clear answers and effective leadership. That's the record voters should weigh before casting their ballots. IMHO Peter’s the wrong guy.
ReplyDeleteCal Berkeley must be proud. Stanford grad here. Go Cardinals!
ReplyDeleteDid he graduate? If so, I hope that his major wasn't accounting. Yikes!
DeleteAmy Callaghan has filed papers. Jim Killoran and Charels Schmidt have also pulled papers.
ReplyDeleteThere was a parking committee formed to study parking around the Olivia project. What did it report. Hard to justify criticizing Cloven for voting for the project if the parking committee found no problems.
ReplyDeleteWhich o the current council members could state what is in the city's investments accounts.
ReplyDeleteWhat city manager reported the missing $50K. Who was mayor at that time?
ReplyDeleteI am certain there must be audited financials every year. That is what is pointed to in attacking the GJ report. Do they recognize unreconciled checkbook. If not how can the audited financials be trusted.
ReplyDeleteI would say Jeff Won for sure. Possibly Jim Diaz as he has been in city service for many years.Kim likely would know as she kept up with city policy and business and even Rich Enea because he tries to keep informed about city business. Holly votes for more money and proposes for more taxes so she may not know what the city budget is or what they have
DeleteLet me guess. There will be nothing but positives about Wan, Trupiano, and Shulman and negatives about the rest. You are a PAC and thus supporting the candidates of your choosing. Just come out and say that!!
ReplyDeleteCan you read? "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."
DeleteI live down the street from Peter. He's a nice guy and a great family man. But politics is just not his strong suit. Sorry Peter.
ReplyDelete