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:
- Writ of Mandate — seeking judicial review by petitioning the court to compel action, which would name the Civil Grand Jury as the responding party.
- 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.
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
You guys are doing an amazing job. There’s so much information here that every Clayton resident should take the time to read this article.
ReplyDeleteThe people behind this nonsense should be ashamed of themselves. I hope the District Attorney’s office takes a serious look into these matters, follows the facts wherever they lead, and holds anyone responsible accountable if wrongdoing is found.
Whoever thought a politically motivated complaint against the City of Clayton was a good idea probably didn't expect people to start asking questions. Funny how quiet it's gotten now. Accountability has a way of making bad ideas uncomfortable. Kudos to Clayton Watch for refusing to let the facts stay buried. - Jimmy the janitor CVCHS
ReplyDeleteAnd just think—the only newspaper in Clayton is gone. That's not necessarily a bad thing when it's spent years pushing a negative, one-sided narrative instead of balanced local journalism. A newspaper should inform the community, not divide it. I can't say I'll miss it. I would agree things have been quiet since the rag paper is gone. Lesson be learned.
DeleteWhere can I make a donation? Sue those SOB's
ReplyDeleteI have no faith in DA Becton; she is buddy-buddy with Holly Tillman. Let's say the negative impact forced on Clayton ran deep.
ReplyDeleteClayton Watch is doing a fabulous job of digging up the people and sources behind the defamation, deceit, manipulation, and corrosive conduct of a group here in town that wants to control city government. I must say it has been a pleasure not having to listen to Holly Tillman rant and rave at every city council meeting because she has lost her audience.
Those who orchestrated this against Clayton should be very worried. They know exactly who they are.
ReplyDeleteIt’s clear they got the idea early on. They schemed together and came up with a narrative. There was so much similarity to the language in the Antioch CGJ report with the common elements being a certain news paper editor and jury foreman. There was all the grandstanding by Holly Tillman for months all while she knew this was going on. At the meeting for the city’s response, Peter Cloven showed up. He didn’t have the stones to say a word and the entire crowd that seemed to be over joyed by the CGJ stayed back after 4 council members voted to send a strong response disagreeing with the overwhelming conclusions of the CGJ report. Even Holly said in the end it was only the tone she wanted to change because she knew so much of the report was garbage. It was a political hit job. There is some information out there that our newspaper editor was part of some editorial board for the CGJ and was dismissed. Could there have been some sort of conflict of interest? Clayton Watch needs to look into that.
ReplyDeleteIt was obvious from the beginning that this was a political hit job related to losing the CBCA contract, losing control of the CBCA council, and the biased, one-sided newspaper owner/editor. Why else would the CBCA be mentioned over 15 times? Why else would the exact words used by the biased editor, “city in decline,” be repeated? Lastly, why would the smug Tillman tell residents they would be eating crow? Clayton really does not need this kind of foundation or leadership, and I, for one, am glad that more reasonable people are now working to serve the interests of the city and its residents.
DeletePeter Cloven sat silently because he lacks backbone and can’t handle criticism. He's a coward through and through. One of the worst Mayors we've ever had, who should have never been mayor in the first place!
DeleteIf Peter wasn't part of this, why didn't he speak up at the council meeting? His silence raises legitimate questions.
DeleteIn my opinion, Peter was one of the city's worst mayors. During his administration, the city's finances were poorly managed, including the reported theft/loss of $50,000 from the city's checkbook. At the same time, he supported a $400-per-parcel annual tax increase without balancing the city’s checkbook . That's not the kind of leadership our community deserved.
Great job CW. Keep up the good work. Thanks for watching out for our small town.
ReplyDeleteI can't imagine where the city of Clayton would be headed if Clayton Watch hadn't been formed and continued to focus on such critical issues. Thanks to all of Clayton's watch members for taking on the role of the city's advocate against malicious internal agents.
ReplyDeleteCW claims "Contrary to what some may believe, Clayton Watch did not immediately go public" but it published a letter to the court dated June 17, 2025. This was even before the city responded to the GJ report.
ReplyDeleteThe June 17 letter was part of the formal review process—not a media campaign. Nice try. You'd be better off focusing on the documented facts and the actions of the small group of individuals whose conduct led to this controversy, rather than trying to rewrite the timeline.
DeleteYou are writing the timeline. The June 17 letter was available to the public.
DeleteBe completely transparent..Let's see all communication that has come from the courts.
DeleteWhat all happened between last October with the Gazette publication and now.
DeleteWhat happened… All the people involved have gone into hiding. Plus one of them went out of business. That’s what happened.
DeleteThe question is..what did Gary Hood and CW do between last Oct and now.
DeleteRead the complete article and click on the links Watson.
DeleteSo nothing
DeleteCalling it 'nothing' is a pretty good way to advertise that you didn't read the whole report. The inconsistencies speak for themselves. This isn't going away, and more information is likely to come."
DeleteHood did nothing between last October. If he did enlighten us.
DeleteI hope the vindictive people who set the CGJ report in motion face legal repercussions. It is more than obvious that they deserve punishment for false and misleading narratives about Clayton.
DeleteAssuming you have read the article, which is probably an erroneous assumption on my part, the article lays out a very detailed action plan taken by Clayton Watch which is backed up by timelines and supporting documents. Take the time and reed all the documents and then, just maybe, you will have a better understanding of all the great work done by Gary and Clayton Watch. John and Barbara
DeleteOn Oct 21 the petition was written...On Oct 31 a complaint written. Now a litter to the DA.
DeleteThe GJ report says nothing about the decision regarding the CBCA just about the process of how that happened and how the committee of Wan and Diaz worked without approval of the complete council.
DeleteWhat did those who filed this complaint expect to get out of it? Did they expect the city to hire Prebula back? Did they expect that somehow the CGJ would force the decision to end the CBCA contract to be reversed? Did they expect that somehow magically it would force Jeff Wan off the council? Why would a group of people and a newspaper editor get behind the idea of making the city look bad with false financial numbers?
ReplyDeleteThey expected the CBCA to go back to controlling the city. That is what it all was about. CBCA was pissed they lost a lucrative contract that was 15 years old and in no way current with current city costs.
ReplyDeleteRecently the CBCA was exploring becoming a 501c4 for the purposes of being able to be political. The members who supported the idea are the same tired crowd that wants to control the council. Fortunately, the idea went nowhere. As a 501c3 it is illegal for them to back candidates or campaign. But the fact they have members willing to force the issue and try to make what they call a nonprofit more like a political party, it tells all of us that some of the members are more concerned about power and not what's in the best interests of Clayton. Hopefully the majority of the members keep the CBCA out of politics. There are members who are keenly aware of the reputational damage CBCA has created for itself with the requests by its president to have their fees somehow be classified as donations. While its unknown who actually filed the complaint with the civil grand jury, it would be no surprise that the same members who pushed for CBCA to become a 501c4 for political purposes were involved in filing the complaint.
DeleteThe CBCA and its political members are problematic here in Clayton. The CBCA should be completely shut down. A real business and community association should be created, one that focuses on supporting everyone rather than controlling the people and the city.
DeleteI agree! It’s time for all the Tillmans, Wolfe, Denslow, Hayden, Hartley, Miller, Steiner, and Cloven to pack it up, stay quiet, and completely step away from all the dirty, malicious games they play to gain control of the city. Only losers have to play dirty games.
DeleteThis is how Tillman secured re-election: she consistently resorts to dishonesty and deception. Whenever she speaks, she's lying. Her followers must stop unthinkingly trusting her and wake up; she cares nothing for them—only herself.
DeleteWant to understand how Clayton became so divided?
ReplyDeleteThese two posts from members of our community connect many of the dots and provide important context for how we got here. After reading them, many of today's events begin to make much more sense.
Why Is Clayton So Divided? Is It About Control?
https://www.claytonwatch.org/2024/04/why-is-clayton-so-divided-is-it-about.html
Clayton Non-Profit Group Causes Concern
https://www.claytonwatch.org/2023/11/clayton-non-profit-group-causes.html
The CBCA is extremely toxic and disruptive to Clayton. It's filled with members who are malicious, underhanded, and all-around dishonest liars who want to control everything in Clayton. Currently, they are on a redemption tour, giving money to places they would normally overlook because their dirty work has seriously damaged their reputation. Just look at the 4th of July parade and all over Facebook—there are individual self-promotion posters because they have lost members. People do not want to be part of such a toxic group!
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the Fourth of July parade, I was standing next to a group of people who appeared to be in their 30s-40s and when the CBCA group came by one person said, " I don't know if I should be booing them or clapping for them!" This organization definitely has some reputation scars to contend with.
DeleteLike I said, a toxic group from the leaders on down!
DeleteThanks for sharing.
ReplyDeleteI watched the two links above and now I have a totally different opinion of the CBCA. I know they do a lot of good, but they need to stay out of politics.
DeleteWhile there is merit to some of the comments about CBCA, let’s not lose focus of what Clayton Watch is doing here. It does appear that someone put a thumb on the scale to get a report out of the civil grand jury to use for other things like perhaps trying to oust councl members or for elections. No one is asking about our our of business newspaper editor who was mysteriously dismissed from the civil grand jury editorial board. No one is asking who gave the false numbers to the civil grand jury and why they chose not to look at audited numbers. Clayton Watch is doing the work. There are other examples of what appears to be outsiders interfering. Another example is our Housing Element which was delayed over and over again by folks in Sacramento. Even after they said it was good they found more reasons to delay it. Perhaps past politicians with long tenure had friends they could call? Who benefited from the Housing Element not being approved? Newspaper editors who wanted to malign the city of Clayton? The one thing about this town that no one wants to admit is the amount of old guard cronyism that has existed. They are the ones who dislike the current councl the most.
ReplyDeleteAll speculation...no facts behind any of these claims of what perhaps happened.
DeleteThen how did the CGJ get things so wrong? Watch this video/podcast and you will see how this thing started. We are so glad that rag paper and her staff are gone. https://contracostanews.podbean.com/e/21-tamara-steiner-talks-clayton-craziness/
DeleteAn interesting question might be her connection to Peter Appert, the Grand Jury foreperson.
DeleteWhat is that connection?
DeleteThe comment on speculation, listen to the podcast from Tamara Steiner and you will see how the speculation came to be. She was on a mission. And the owner of that faux new site who constantly bashes people for putting out false narratives himself put out the false narrative about Hoffmeister being secretly set up for City Manager supposedly to stop the Olivia. That guy is friends with Tamara Steiner. Look at all of his one sided stories about Clayton. The speculation comes from the methodical narrative that "they" started planting long before the Civil Grand Jury report came out. And the similarity in language of Clayton report and Antioch report is suspect. What is NOT speculation is that the civil grand jury used FALSE numbers and made allegations about Brown Act violations. There were no Brown Act violations, period. What is also not speculation are the stories Tamara Steiner kept printing where she wanted to make it look like the city was broke. When you look at it from that point of view and ask yourself who had the agenda, the "speculation" is more than warranted. The bottom line is this action was so unnecessary. Clayton Watch would not exist if not for all these unwarranted actions. The CBCA didn't stop doing events as a result of the contract being terminated. The city is marching on. Wouldn't it be great if we stopped fighting about this nonsense?
DeleteJulie Pierce's fingerprints, in my opinion, are on some of our trouble with the housing element. She is a longtime political figure with her hands in many pots. The city complied with everything for the housing element, yet they continued to move the goals, but only for Clayton. If it weren't for Tim Grayson stepping in, we still would not have an approved housing element. Just another example of a former CBCA loyalist still stepping on toes, pushing the Steiner narrative.
DeleteRead finding number 9 in the GJ report. Brown Act violation. Period
DeleteReally, Einstein? It helps if you actually read the report before criticizing it.
DeleteError in Report 2505 – Brown Act References as found in the Petition
Issue
Report 2505 discusses the City of Clayton's process for selecting and placing items on the City Council agenda and introduces that discussion with references to the Brown Act (Government Code §§ 54950–54963). Although the report cites the Brown Act, it identifies no actual Brown Act violation and provides no evidence that any provision of the Act was violated.
By framing the discussion in this manner, the report conflates the City's internal administrative agenda-setting procedures with California's statutory open meeting requirements. This creates the misleading impression that the City may have violated the Brown Act when no such finding is made or supported by the report.
(See Exhibit 8, Civil Grand Jury Report No. 2505, pp. 6–8.)
Proposed Correction
Revise the introductory language to clearly distinguish administrative procedures from legal compliance under the Brown Act. For example:
"The following discussion concerns the City Council's internal administrative procedures for selecting and scheduling agenda items. These procedures are separate from the requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code §§ 54950–54963). Report 2505 makes no finding, and presents no evidence, that the City violated any provision of the Brown Act."
Basis for Correction
This revision accurately reflects the report's own findings. It makes clear that the discussion concerns internal administrative practices rather than compliance with California's open meeting laws. Without this clarification, the report unnecessarily implies potential legal misconduct where none is alleged or substantiated.
Correcting this language would improve the report's accuracy, reduce the risk of public misunderstanding, and preserve the integrity of both the Brown Act and the Civil Grand Jury's findings.
Verification: California Government Code §§ 54950–54963 (Ralph M. Brown Act).
Doesn't the Brown Act require public comment? That is what finding 9 is in reference to.
DeleteI guess anonymous July 14, 2026 at 7:47 AM thinks we are all stupid. Read the report ahole and stop the nonsense and misinformation.
DeleteYou can't reason with the rabid crowd that hates this council. They love the "old guard" the CBCA and want things to go backwards. They decide who can run and get elected. There was no Brown Act violations, yet they will continue to say there were.
DeleteIt must be another political CBCA member trying once again to bring up a Brown Act violation without support. Is that person taking notes from Tillman, who tried that on Rich Enea before he was sworn onto the council? The CBCA is a toxic cesspool from Wolfe on down.
Deletethis comment should be deleted.
DeleteWhy? Because the truth hurts..
DeleteRead the GJ report finding 9..and the city's response. The response said...yep that happened on occasion and we are addressing it. It's a Brown Act violation to not call for public comment at a regularly scheduled meeting.
DeleteWhy should it be removed? It is a fact that Tillman tried a Brown Act violation against Rich Enea before he was sworn in; it's on video. I guess you either don't attend meetings or watch the videos. I stand by what was said about the CBCA being a political cesspool; again, go back and watch videos of the members acting out in council. Truth is truth, whether you like it or not.
DeleteThe report does not cite specific examples. The city's response acknowledges the finding and says it is being addressed, but it does not identify particular meetings or make a legal determination about individual Brown Act violations. So, please move on and stop trying to bash our small city.
DeleteAlso, while you’re at it. . . watch these videos. Copy and paste these into your browser and see the real truth. Howard G spread rumors they were AI generated, you decide. https://www.claytonwatch.org/p/holly-tillman-in-action-her-words-not.html
DeleteMaybe you should look at page 15 of the GJ report to find a table of meetings that did not call for public comment.
DeleteThose are errors on the part of the staff that didn't put it in agenda. Public comment was still called for at those meetings. That’s called an administrative mistake not a Brown Act violation genius, But hey, bet your one of those who went around saying the city is broke because you can’t read audited reports.
DeleteThe best thing the people of Clayton could do is stop joining the CBCA, stop listening to its leaders, and ignore the rants of the old guard who can't accept that they have no control over the city government. The old guard is a group of tired, worn-out, malicious, rude, self-inflated egos who only care about their own importance. It’s the wannabe group that could never really take over a big city government.
ReplyDelete