Top Story

Rear-View Mirror: A Look Back at Clayton Watch

By the Clayton Watch Team

Every town has that moment when you realize someone needs to pay closer attention. For Clayton, that moment arrived in August 2024, and that’s when we founded Clayton Watch.

We didn’t start this site to be popular. We started it because too much of what was being said about Clayton didn’t match the record, didn’t match the meetings, and didn’t match what residents were living through in real time.

So we made a decision early on:

We weren’t going to “join the conversation.” We were going to document it, verify it, and follow it forward.

And that mission has shaped everything we’ve done since.

How It All Unfolded — The Road Behind Us

1) We Built the Civic Archive the Town Didn’t Have

Before Clayton Watch, public meetings were technically public, but for the average resident, following city business felt like a scavenger hunt with no map. You had to hunt through agendas, minutes, scattered videos, and vague summaries.

So we stepped in and built a consistent, searchable archive of:

•  City Council meetings and recaps
•  Budget & Audit and Financial Sustainability sessions
•  Special meetings, study sessions, and key workshops
•  Community letters, public comments, and resident concerns

Our goal was simple: make the civic record easy to find, easy to follow, and impossible to quietly rewrite.

When residents ask, “Did that really happen?” we want the answer to be: Yes, and here it is.

2) We Called Out Leadership Gaps When Leadership Was Missing

A major reason Clayton Watch grew so quickly is that residents could feel it: leadership was inconsistent and, at times, effectively non-existent.

During this period:

•  We documented concerns that Reina Schwartz was working remotely from Sacramento during parts of her tenure, at a time when residents expected visible, hands-on leadership.
•  We also documented community observations that Bret Prebula lacked the leadership presence and people skills needed to stabilize City Hall, rebuild trust, and communicate clearly with the public.
•  During that same time period, an annual $400 parcel tax was pushed by former City Manager Reina Schwartz, supported by council members Carl Wolfe, Peter Cloven and Holly Tillman, while the city had not reconciled its checkbook in over 18 months.

In plain terms: They didn't know our numbers, but still pushed for a tax.

We pushed back because the issue was never solvency, it was the lack of leadership and accountability.

Today, Clayton’s finances are guided by experienced professionals working with strong rigor and transparency. Our mission remains the same: track the record, demand accountability, and protect the facts.

We are not interested in personal attacks. We are interested in performance, accountability, and outcomes, because when leadership disappears, residents pay the price in confusion, drift, and poor follow-through.

And that’s the difference worth preserving.

3) We Challenged the Spin — From Papers to Politicians

When local narratives stopped matching the record, we stepped in.

We challenged the Clayton–Concord Pioneer when it drifted into:

•  One-sided political framing
•  Civic reporting without verification
•  Dramatic claims unsupported by evidence

The publication is now defunct. We didn’t celebrate its end, but we archived its final season for accuracy, because Clayton’s history deserves honesty, not nostalgia.

Misspeaks, Misuse, and a Town That said 'No'

We also documented candidates running for local office when campaign rhetoric crossed boundaries or contradicted facts.

Here are the moments the community needed to know about:

•  One candidate campaigned on outsourcing Clayton’s police services, an idea met with strong community resistance. The town responded immediately and with unity. The candidate later said he misspoke or was misunderstood, a reversal we preserved for the record.
•  Another candidate, holding a high-ranking state title, attempted to use her position to influence internal governance decisions at a local charter high school. Residents viewed it as a boundary failure and misuse of perceived prestige. Her title-driven pressure, applied without process, resulted in a lawsuit filed against her by the charter high school, which publicly rejected outside political interference in internal school governance. We documented it as a clear indicator of flawed judgment by this individual.
•  Another candidate, claimed Clayton was racist, that our police profile, and that residents were afraid to leave their homes at night triggered alarm, but collapsed under verification using actual crime statistics, public safety reports, and council video archives.
•  That candidate, who is now serving on the City Council, later scrubbed the unverified racial claims from her campaign website, raising the key question we preserved for the community:

Were the problems solved, or did they never exist in the first place?

Either way, the town’s resistance to misinformation defined the outcome, and her silence spoke louder than the original headline ever did.

Our mission has never been about personalities, it's about process, proof, and perserving the record accurately, especially when the narratives wobble under daylight.

4) We Elevated Neighborhood Parking Into the Olivia on Marsh Creek Conversation

From the beginning of the Olivia on Marsh Creek project, residents raised clear and consistent concerns about spillover parking migrating into surrounding neighborhoods. Those concerns were often minimized, fragmented, or addressed in isolation, rather than as a direct consequence of the project’s approved design.

So we got specific, and we stayed specific.

Clayton Watch documented and explained how parking tied directly to the Olivia project:

•  We clarified what the approved parking plan actually allowed versus what residents were experiencing in real time.
•  We examined the Parking Permit Program as a mitigation tool, explaining how it works, what it can and cannot solve, and why it should be discussed as part of the project’s impacts, not as a separate afterthought.
•  We pushed for resident-first solutions, emphasizing that surrounding neighborhoods should not be expected to absorb overflow while enforcement and mitigation lagged behind occupancy.

Our position was straightforward:

Neighborhoods should not have to “get used to it” when parking impacts are a foreseeable result of a project’s design and approvals.

Parking is not an abstract policy debate, it is a quality-of-life issue, and in the case of Olivia on Marsh Creek, it deserved real attention, real mitigation, and real follow-through.

5) We Took on “Weeds Gone Wild” Before Fire Season Took Over

We also documented what residents were seeing on the ground: vegetation overgrowth wasn’t just an eyesore, it was wildfire fuel.

Through “Weeds Gone Wild,” we:

•  kept attention on public parcels and rights-of-way,
•  amplified resident warnings,
•  and pushed back on feel-good claims of oversight that didn’t match visible reality.

This is exactly what we mean by watchdog work: Issues don’t go away just because someone stops talking about them.

6) We Documented the Post Office Cleanup Until It Happened

We also kept pressure on an issue that many people quietly noticed but few were tracking publicly: the decline of the Post Office area, overgrowth, dumping, and a general “this isn’t who we are” feel.

We documented it until it became impossible to ignore. And when the cleanup happened, we documented that too, because we’re not here just to critique. We’re here to show the arc of cause, pressure, and results.

7) Olivia on Marsh Creek: The Oversight Story That Defined Our Role

If there’s one topic that shows why Clayton Watch exists, it’s Olivia on Marsh Creek.

We documented something important early:

Olivia on Marsh Creek was never approved or designed as a 55-and-over senior housing project, and the approved parking plan ultimately needed a reality check.

That misconception circulated publicly, and we corrected it, because labels matter, and misinformation becomes “fact” if no one challenges it.

But the bigger issue wasn’t the label. The bigger issue was oversight.

We documented resident concerns that: 

•  Conditions of Approval were discussed, but enforcement wasn’t clearly verifiable, residents asking questions were sometimes treated like a problem,
•  PIRs and public requests were met with defensiveness rather than transparency,
•  and public confidence was being replaced by “trust us” messaging.

So we kept repeating the line Clayton needed to hear:

Approval is not oversight. Oversight is the job.

And we made sure that idea stayed in the public record.

8) We Challenged Misleading Local Media

As the issues grew, so did the spin, and we began documenting something else: the way local narratives were being shaped through a long-running local paper.

We publicly challenged the Clayton–Concord Pioneer when it drifted into:

•  one-sided framing,
•  misleading civic coverage,
•  and unsupported claims presented as reporting.

That publication is now defunct.

We didn’t celebrate its end, but we did preserve the truth of its final chapter, because Clayton’s media history deserves honesty, not nostalgia.

9) Civil Grand Jury Report 2505: The Spark, The Letters, and the Petition

When the Civil Grand Jury Report 2505 was released, many residents felt it read less like neutral fact-finding and more like a targeted narrative.

The complainant remained anonymous, as allowed, but the public roadmap did not.

So we responded the right way: through process, documentation, and formal advocacy.

We delivered:

•  letters to the Superior Court Judge,
•  letters to the Lead County Attorney,
•  letters to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, especially Supervisor Ken Carlson,
•  and a formal Petition to Correct or Amend the Public Record, supported by exhibits and primary documentation. (more on that to come later.)

We also documented what many residents recognized:

•  calls for investigation were being amplified by a small, organized circle of unhappy advocates,
•  the Clayton Business and Community Association (CBCA) contract drama and fallout was part of the public context,
•  and the report itself reflected an agenda that did not represent the full town.

Clayton Watch didn’t make it personal, but the timeline made it clear.

10) The Journalism Void Was Filled

When the Pioneer closed, Diablo Gazette stepped up its presence in Clayton and expanded independent coverage of local civic affairs.

We welcome that, because we’ve always believed:

A small town deserves more than one independent voice committed to the public record.

The View Behind Us

Looking back, we’re proud of what Clayton Watch has become, not because we “won arguments,” but because we built something more valuable:

•  A civic archive residents can actually follow
•  A timeline that makes spin harder and facts easier
•  A platform that keeps issues alive long enough for answers to appear
•  A public record that doesn’t evaporate when the headline cycle ends

We didn’t set out to win awards. We set out to make sure the record was accurate enough that awards could exist someday.

And that’s not just a win, that’s a legacy.

Respectfully submitted,

Clayton Watch
Political Action Committee and Members

Top Story

When Support Vanishes: Holly Tillman’s Leadership Claims Meet Public Silence

The City Council meeting, Tuesday, December 16, 2025, provided a clear, public measure of leadership support. When the moment arrived, Councilmember Holly Tillman was passed over, and only two speakers addressed the Council on her behalf. There was no visible demonstration of broader public backing, despite that day's social media commentary that amounted to little more than noise and did not translate into any meaningful, in-person support.

For positions as consequential as Vice Mayor or Mayor, these roles carry real responsibility: setting agendas, representing the City publicly, and speaking accurately on behalf of the entire community.

For these reasons, and in light of the record below, Clayton residents have sent a clear and unmistakable message.

Financial Narratives vs. Verified Facts: Holly Tillman’s Track Record

Over an extended period, Holly Tillman promoted a narrative that Clayton was in severe financial distress. These claims took hold before City staff completed the difficult work of correcting years of miscategorized revenues and expenses, and they continued even as audited Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports and public meetings revealed a clearer and more stable financial picture.

During this same period, Councilmember Tillman did not review or approve the City’s budget in two separate years. Despite this, she supported proposed tax increases, advocating for a sales tax increase in 2024 before the City’s financial position was fully understood, and previously promoting discussion of a proposed $400-per-household parcel tax in 2022 without a verified financial basis.

Leadership requires either command of the facts or the restraint to defer to verified data. When alarmist conclusions persist after the record changes, the result is not public understanding; it is public confusion.

Serious Allegations Without Evidence or Closure

Holly Tillman has publicly advanced claims that Clayton is a racist town, that residents are afraid to leave their homes, and that the police department engages in racial profiling. These are not casual remarks; they are serious allegations that can damage public trust, harm morale, and tarnish reputations.

Yet the public record reflects that Councilmember Tillman has not provided:

•  Specific incidents
•  Supporting evidence
•  Public findings
•  Clear clarifications or corrections

Leadership requires accountability for words used, particularly when those words accuse an entire community and its public servants of systemic wrongdoing without substantiation.

Calls for Investigations Without Resolution

For more than 15 months, Holly Tillman repeatedly called for investigations into Clayton’s governance and institutions. However, residents have not been presented with publicly documented outcomes, conclusions, or explanations when those calls produced no substantiated findings.

During this same period, she repeatedly characterized City Hall as toxic and hostile, at a time when the City and the remainder of the Council were working to stabilize operations, recruit competent leadership, and rebuild a professional staff environment. Rather than supporting those efforts, this rhetoric sowed discord and uncertainty.

When leaders call for investigations without follow-through or resolution, it fuels fear and division. Responsible leadership explains outcomes or acknowledges when claims do not bear out.

Additional Concerns: Firewise and Representation Responsibilities

Concerns about accuracy and follow-through also extend to how certain initiatives and engagements have been presented.

Councilmember Tillman has cited her involvement with the Firewise program as a significant leadership accomplishment. However, the Firewise program is initiated and administered by the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, not by the City Council. While cities may support or cooperate with Fire District efforts, councilmembers do not initiate, certify, or control Firewise designation.

The public record does not indicate that these efforts led to the establishment of a recognized or operational Firewise program in Clayton. Presenting this as a City Council-driven achievement blurs lines of authority and risks overstating both involvement and results.

Similar concerns arise regarding Councilmember Tillman’s account of her participation in the League of California Cities conference in Long Beach. On October 15, 2024, the City Council unanimously designated Councilmember Holly Tillman as Clayton’s voting delegate to the League of California Cities Annual Conference in Long Beach, where delegates are responsible for representing their cities and voting at the General Assembly scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Friday, October 18. Councilmember Tillman departed Long Beach on Thursday evening and was therefore not present for the General Assembly the following morning, leaving Clayton without representation at the time attendance was taken.

At the time she left, there was no indication that a quorum would not be achieved or that the vote would not proceed. Given that the primary purpose of the designation was to represent the City and cast its vote, her early departure raises legitimate questions regarding accountability and the appropriate use of City resources.

Taken together, these episodes reflect a broader pattern: overstating involvement, blurring lines of authority, and revising the narrative after the fact.

The Civil Grand Jury Report: Why Holly Tillman’s Role Raises Questions

The recent Civil Grand Jury report adds another layer warranting scrutiny.

For months before the Grand Jury’s involvement, Holly Tillman, often amplified through the Clayton Pioneer, helped shape a public narrative urging outside intervention and civil grand jury scrutiny. When a report later emerged that tracked many of the same themes, the public was entitled to ask how independence was preserved. The editor of the Clayton Pioneer has acknowledged that many emails received from former City staff were sent directly by Councilmember Tillman.

Even the highly incendiary framing of the Civil Grand Jury report itself, titled “Clayton: Small Town, Big Concerns,” raises legitimate concerns about narrative shaping. That title closely mirrored the storyline Councilmember Tillman had been publicly advancing for months prior.

The effect of that framing was not merely critical; it was reputational. Clayton has long been known as a small, close-knit, welcoming, and resilient community, defined by civic pride and neighborliness. The report’s title and surrounding narrative cast Clayton instead as fundamentally troubled and dysfunctional, creating a lasting and damaging public impression that many residents believe was disproportionate to the verified facts.

When a sitting councilmember actively promotes a narrative of systemic failure, urges outside intervention, and a grand jury report later adopts the same framing, the appearance problem is undeniable. At a minimum, the public is entitled to ask whether advocacy crossed into influence.

Leadership carries a duty not only to critique when warranted, but also to protect the community’s integrity and reputation by ensuring criticism is fair, factual, and proportionate.

What Councilmember Tillman has not clearly addressed is:

•  Whether she had any direct or indirect contact connected to the Civil Grand Jury  process
•  Whether her advocacy remained strictly public commentary or crossed into behind-the-scenes influence
•  Why was later-corrected financial information not treated with equal weight

This is not an attack on the Civil Grand Jury system. It is a transparency issue.

Quiet Removal of Prior Claims

At a later point, material appearing on Councilmember Tillman’s website reflecting racial and policing allegations was removed without explanation. If those allegations were accurate, residents deserve to know why they were removed. If they were overstated or unsupported, residents deserve a clear correction.

Leaders correct the record. Silent revisions undermine trust and leave the community without closure.

Transparency and Undisclosed Relationships

Questions also remain regarding Councilmember Tillman’s business relationship with Amy Heins-Shaikh of Wild Cat Consulting. Councilmember Tillman initially supported and voted for Ms. Heins-Shaikh’s appointment to the Planning Commission. It later became publicly known that Ms. Heins-Shaikh was a registered lobbyist in California, an affiliation that was not clearly disclosed during periods when Councilmember Tillman was actively running for City Council and later serving in that role.

It has also been documented that Councilmember Tillman’s photograph appeared on the Wild Cat Consulting website, identifying her as a client, and was later removed. Following public awareness of this relationship, Councilmember Tillman declined to support Ms. Heins-Shaikh’s reappointment to a second term on the Planning Commission, despite having supported her initial appointment.

As of today, the public record does not clearly reflect the nature of their financial or business relationship, including whether any compensation was exchanged or whether services were provided as an in-kind contribution, either of which would have required appropriate disclosure filings if they occurred.

Taken together, these unresolved issues raise substantial concerns regarding transparency, consistency, and judgment that warrant clarification.

For the Vice Mayor or Mayor, transparency is not optional.

Media Alignment and Narrative Amplification

There are unresolved questions regarding Councilmember Tillman’s relationship with the Clayton Pioneer during a period when highly critical narratives about Clayton’s finances, policing, and governance were repeatedly amplified.

This is not a critique of journalism. It is a question of role separation and transparency. When a councilmember’s public positions and a publication’s editorial direction appear to move in lockstep, particularly during sustained calls for investigations and civil grand jury involvement, the public deserves clarity.

Stewardship of Public Funds

Councilmember Tillman supported approximately $7,000 in Good Governance training for the City, presenting it as necessary to improve council operations. After the training, she publicly criticized it as ineffective and portrayed the Council as divided. 

Council voting records over the past several years have consistently reflected near-unanimous decisions, often 5-0 or 4-1. In those instances where votes were not unanimous, Councilmember Tillman most often cast the sole dissenting vote. The Council is not divided; it is functioning cohesively and aligned in addressing the consequences of prior poor leadership and financial mismanagement, while supporting the current staff’s efforts to correct longstanding errors and restore accurate financial oversight.

Leadership means standing behind decisions or transparently explaining when expectations are not met.

The Standard Clayton Deserves

The Vice Mayor and Mayor must:

•  Respect verified facts over narrative
•  Use language carefully and responsibly
•  Correct the record when claims change
•  Disclose relationships that raise reasonable questions
•  Protect the integrity of independent oversight
•  Treat taxpayer dollars with care
•  Unite the community rather than divide it

Based on the public record summarized above, Councilmember Holly Tillman has not yet met those standards.

Conclusion

Taken together, financial mischaracterizations, serious unsubstantiated allegations, prolonged calls for investigations without outcomes, overstated accomplishments, incomplete representation at official forums, unresolved questions surrounding the Civil Grand Jury report, quiet removal of prior claims, unresolved transparency issues, media-alignment concerns, and inconsistent positions regarding taxpayer-funded governance initiatives, the record raises legitimate doubts about Councilmember Tillman’s readiness for Clayton’s top leadership roles.

Until these matters are openly addressed and the record clearly clarified, elevating her to Vice Mayor or Mayor would be premature and inconsistent with the accountability Clayton residents should expect.

This is not about silencing dissent. It is about owning the record, respecting public resources, and earning trust.

Clayton deserves leadership that governs with integrity, speaks with precision, and places facts above narrative. Congratulations to Jeff Wan, Mayor and Rich Enea, Vice Mayor!

Respectfully submitted,

Clayton Watch Team

Celebrating a Greener, Brighter Future for Clayton!

As Seen on NBC Bay Area News!

Clayton’s sustainability efforts were recently highlighted on NBC Bay Area in a feature story titled “Clayton Goes Green.”

The segment showcases the City’s commitment to energy savings, modernization, and a greener future.

Watch the full NBC video here:

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/video/news/local/clayton-goes-green/3984376/

We are thrilled to announce a major milestone in Clayton's journey toward sustainability and innovation! The City of Clayton is proud to unveil the completion of our Comprehensive Infrastructure Renewal and General Fund Savings Program, a groundbreaking $2 million energy modernization initiative that’s setting us on the path to a net-zero energy future.

This exciting program includes:

• Solar structures harnessing clean, renewable energy

• LED lighting upgrades for greater efficiency

• HVAC system improvements to reduce energy consumption

• EV charging stations to support green transportation

• Smart irrigation controls to conserve water

Thanks to these efforts, Clayton will save an estimated $4.7 million in utility and operational costs over the lifetime of the project, all while reducing our environmental footprint.

A special thank you to our City Council and City Staff for their hard work, vision, and dedication in bringing this transformative project to life. Without their leadership, this milestone would not be possible.

A Lot Has Changed at City Hall — In a Good Way

If you missed the State of the City meeting, you may want to set aside some time to watch the recording. The presentation, led by Mayor Kim Trupiano, along with reports from each department head, including the Chief of Police and City Manager Kris Lofthus, provided a clear and impressive look at what’s been happening behind the scenes. Click here to watch this impressive presentation.

- The progress is real.

- The teamwork is genuine.

- And the direction is encouraging.

The leadership team currently in place has a level of organization, awareness, and problem-solving that is a night-and-day difference from the past. They not only outlined where the city stands today, but also where improvements are needed, and many of those improvements are already underway.

We encourage everyone to watch the recorded video of the meeting and see for yourself. We believe you’ll walk away with the same feeling many of us had that evening: A renewed sense of confidence and pride in the place we call home.

Clayton is on the right track — and it shows.

Civil Grand Jury Report - Update

Clayton Watch Fighting to Amend Civil Grand Jury Report on City of Clayton

by David King, Diablo Gazette (October 2025)

Petition filed with the Superior Court of Californina,
Contra Costa County

Last June the Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury released its scathing Report 2505, “Clayton: Small City, big Concerns,” characterizing Clayton City Council of gross dysfunction and operating at near financial ruin and offered a series of procedural recommendations. 

The council responded mostly with disagreement with almost all of its findings, citing the report was filled with errors, guided by misinformation, and rejected the recommendations. So, that was the end of it right? 

Not so fast. 

While the Council is ready to move on, Diablo Gazette received a copy of a 56-page petition submitted by the Political Action Committee, Clayton Watch, submitted to the Contra Costa County Superior Court of California, datestamped on Oct. 23, asking for the court to amend the record.

According to Gary Hood, a founding member of Clayton Watch, Clayton Watch feels the Grand Jury Report maligns Clayton and that damage needs to be mitigated with the facts. 

With the report as is, the concern is should Clayton have future recruiting needs to fill key government and law enforcement positions, the report can dissuade top candidates, as well as be weaponized in future political campaigns to misinform voters. 

The first challenge was to confirm that Clayton Watch even had standing to challenge the Grand Jury Report, which it claims it does for being a duly registered civic organization acting on matters of community concern, government transparency, and accountability. 

The petition was submitted after several written requests to simply review the report and correct misstatements with verified facts, but those requests were at first unanswered, then eventually rejected. 

There is no precedent for such action. Further complicating a formal review is that the Jurors who conducted the investigation are protected by anonymity, and have all been replaced with a new set of Jurors.

The petition cites several problems with the original report, notwithstanding its prejudicial title. Supported by exhibits, the petition identifies six additional specific factual and procedural deficiencies in the report. 

The report misstates the general fund revenues, expenditures and balances by relying on unaudited figures. The exhibit provides the audited figures which Hood says dispels the Jury’s findings.

The report criticizes the City for not taking action for revenue enhancement; the exhibit verifies actions that were taken. 

Citing extreme turnover in City manager positions, the petition points out that it is overstating that turnover by counting interim assignments. 

Regarding Brown Act violations, the petition accuses the Civil Grand Jury of not understanding the functions and procedures of special committees and that no Brown Act violations occurred. 

Speaking of procedures, the petition charges that it was the Grand Jury that failed its legal obligations by not providing the Council and any other affected agencies with a copy of the report prior to publication as required by Penal Code 933(f). 

Since the original Report cannot be changed, the petition asks that an amendment be filed with the provided factual remedies and suggestions presented. 

Copies of the petition were sent to the presiding Judge, Hon. Terri Mockler, Matt Malone, Chief Counsel and Public Information Officer, County Supervisor Ken Carlson, Clayton City councilmembers, President of the Grand Jurors Association and others.

Now waiting for the Superior Court’s response, Hood seems to be swimming in uncharted waters. 

Ironically, The Civil Grand Jury Association, a statewide organization that trains and educates Civil Grand Jurors, met in San Luis Obispo on October 26 and 27. The theme of the conference, “Civil Grand Jury, the Cornerstone of Transparency and Accountibility”.

Perhaps Clayton Watch’s efforts will be a training tool in the future. To read the entire petition and its exhibits, click here.

Click here to watch this impressive presentation.

Clayton Finances – Real Progress, Real Leadership

To: The Mayor, City Council, and City Staff

From: Clayton Watch

Subject: Clayton Finances – Real Progress, Real Leadership

Clayton’s finances have always been fundamentally sound. What’s different this past year is the presence of leadership that understands the numbers, manages them with discipline, and makes decisions grounded in facts.

June and July should have been an opportunity to celebrate that progress. Instead, the moment was overshadowed by an outside report, fueled by negative stories from the now-defunct town paper, a self-serving City Council member, and others engaging in political gamesmanship. While those efforts captured headlines, they did nothing to change the reality: Clayton now has a clear grasp of its finances, is managing them responsibly, and is planning for long-term stability.

Balanced Budget, Better Process

Just a year ago, residents were warned of a projected $629,000 deficit for the current fiscal year. That projection didn’t hold; the actual shortfall was less than $80,000. Under the focused leadership of City Manager Kris Loftus, with the support of engaged staff and an energized Budget & Audit Committee, the City adopted a balanced, bottom-up budget on time and without theatrics.

In June 2025, Clayton also passed its first-ever two-year budget, a milestone that shows real fiscal discipline and planning.

Stability Through Leadership

Clayton’s financial position is now stronger than it has been in years:

• The General Fund surplus is approximately $7 million, providing a healthy cushion.

• Capital improvement funds are directed toward high-priority needs based on data and public input, not political pageantry.

• The Budget & Audit Committee now meets regularly to scrutinize spending, review investments, and safeguard reserves.

Execution Over Excuses

The City is delivering results:

• Housing Element – Adopted locally in January 2023, delayed by State review and staffing changes, and now on track for approval in late September 2025.

• Climatec Infrastructure Program – Includes LED lighting conversions, new HVAC systems, smart irrigation, a solar array, and EV charging stations.

City staff are engaging the community while staying on top of core responsibilities. The old refrain of “too overworked to deliver” has been replaced with results.

Revenue, Fees, and Long-Term Sustainability

The City has implemented multiple policy-driven revenue measures, including:

• Updated Investment Policy – Partnered with a third-party manager for stronger investment performance.

• Master Fee Schedule Update – Adjusted fees to reflect actual service costs, including a new large-event fee for significant City resource use.

• Business License Compliance – Partnered with HDL to improve renewals and identify unlicensed businesses.

• Waste Management Contract – Renegotiated with Republic Services to meet recycling mandates and improve cost efficiency.

• Professional Investment Oversight – Partnered with UBS for improved portfolio growth.

A Revenue Enhancement Session is scheduled for Tuesday, August 19, 2025, to explore additional strategies for long-term financial sustainability. The discussion will cover potential new revenue sources as well as the steps required to put them into action.

Reducing Expenses and Increasing Efficiency

The City has also taken decisive steps to decrease expenses without compromising service quality:

• Staffing Consolidation – Streamlining positions to improve efficiency.

• Service Contract Reviews – Renegotiating agreements to reduce ongoing expenses.

• Lowering Energy Costs and Water Consumption – Implementing conservation strategies and efficiency upgrades.

• Temporary Contract Employees – Using short-term contract workers where appropriate, avoiding long-term staffing costs.

What’s Different Now

Past years saw political distractions and leadership turnover, particularly under prior council members Carl Wolfe, Peter Cloven, and Holly Tillman, and during the extended tenure of career politician Julie Pierce. City priorities often skewed toward ceremonies, proclamations, and parades instead of core services.

Poor leadership from past city managers worsened the situation:

• Reina Schwartz (2020) frequently worked remotely from Sacramento, was rarely present, and left the City with declining services.

• Bret Prebula ignored hiring protocols, skipped background checks, failed to post openings, and withheld financial and project information, forcing residents to file Public Records Act requests for basic answers.

Today, that approach is gone, replaced with competent, engaged leadership that focuses on execution, accountability, and planning.

The Bottom Line

Clayton has turned the corner. Real management has replaced past mismanagement, and the City is operating with discipline, transparency, and momentum.

In closing, we extend our sincere appreciation to City Manager Kris Loftus and the entire City staff for their dedication, professionalism, and unwavering commitment to serving our community. We also wish to thank Mayor Kim Trupiano, Vice Mayor Jeff Wan, and Council Members Jim Diaz and Rich Enea for their steady leadership and for keeping the City’s priorities at the forefront.

Clayton Watch will continue to monitor the numbers, the projects, and the promises, ensuring that progress isn’t just announced, but delivered.

Best regards,

Clayton Watch Team

Letters to Contra Costa County and a Public Information Request

Important Update from the Clayton Watch Team

Dear Clayton Community,

It has come to our attention that several letters sent to Contra Costa County regarding the Civil Grand Jury Report have not been properly posted on the Clayton Watch website.

To view the correspondence, please visit:
https://www.claytonwatch.org/2025/06/contra-costa-county-civil-grand-jury.html

The Clayton Watch Team has submitted two formal letters, addressed to the judge, the jury foreperson, and the Board of Supervisors, respectfully requesting a reply. As of today, no response has been received.

We are currently considering whether to send a third and final letter and notify the media about this continued disregard for the public. These officials were elected to serve the community and are funded by taxpayer dollars. Ignoring public concerns is unacceptable.

We will keep you updated on any further developments.

Additionally, a Public Information Request (PIR) was filed with Contra Costa County.

To view that correspondence and the County’s response, visit:
https://www.claytonwatch.org/2025/07/public-information-request-7-8-25.html

Thank you for staying informed and engaged.

Sincerely,

The Clayton Watch Team

End of an Era: Clayton Pioneer Newspaper to Cease Publication!

After more than two decades of serving the Clayton community, the Clayton Pioneer is officially closing its doors. This marks not only the end of a long-standing local newspaper but also the culmination of editorial missteps and growing political entanglements under its owner, Tamara Steiner.

Founded by Harry Green and later acquired by Tamara and Bob Steiner, the Pioneer thrived under early leadership. Tamara, a former journalist, brought passion and a strong editorial voice, making the paper a trusted source for local news, from high school sports to city council coverage.

However, over time, Tamara’s personal and political ambitions began to overshadow the paper’s core mission. The publication gradually shifted from objective reporting to a platform for her personal views, particularly through her involvement with the Clayton Business and Community Association (CBCA), of which her husband, Bob Steiner, was a past president. This connection blurred the lines between journalism and political influence, raising questions about the objectivity of the paper. 

By 2018, Tamara’s political engagement became more overt, as she began endorsing CBCA-backed candidates for city council, something she had previously avoided. Coverage of those she disagreed with grew increasingly combative, further merging journalism with political activism.

The most glaring issue came when the Pioneer published a false report during a local election, inaccurately claiming that a candidate had received the most votes. This misinformation not only caused confusion but also severely damaged the paper's credibility. The situation worsened when the Pioneer published an unfounded story suggesting Clayton was in financial decline, even comparing it to Antioch. This negative reporting contributed to the collapse of several real estate deals, further tarnishing the city's reputation and eroding public trust in the paper.

If things weren’t bad enough, four out of five Council members, along with senior city staff and members of the police department, refused to engage with her due to biased reporting and a lack of professionalism. This led to unnecessary divisions within local government and strained relationships crucial for effective governance.

Tamara’s involvement with the recent Civil Grand Jury report, alongside Councilmember Holly Tillman, further raised concerns within the community. The report was widely criticized for being biased, flawed, and factually inaccurate. This only fueled perceptions of political favoritism, reinforcing doubts about the Pioneer's objectivity and credibility.

While financial pressures and the shift to digital media played a role in the paper's decline, many believe its demise was primarily driven by the abandonment of objective reporting in favor of personal and political agendas.

Tamara Steiner’s recent health diagnosis is a deeply personal matter, and despite past criticisms, we wish her strength and healing during this challenging time.

The closure of the Pioneer serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of journalistic independence. For the Clayton community, it’s not just the loss of a newspaper, but a reminder that journalism must prioritize truth above personal or political interests.

As Clayton moves forward, we hope the next chapter of local news will be rooted in honesty, fairness, and responsibility.

The Clayton Watch Team

Special Meeting - Please Be There - Starts at 4:00 PM

Special Meeting Reveals the Truth: Clayton Council Responds to Civil Grand Jury Report - Holly Tillman Isolated and Exposed

To the Clayton Community,

We are writing to bring attention to a matter of great concern regarding the recently issued Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury report on the City of Clayton, and to highlight what unfolded at the special City Council meeting on June 24, 2025.

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

Clayton Watch Report - June 26, 2025

In a decisive supermajority 4–1 vote, the Clayton City Council approved its official response to the Civil Grand Jury’s politically charged and deeply flawed report. Led by Mayor Trupiano and Vice Mayor Jeff Wan, with support from Councilmembers Jim Diaz and Rich Enea, the Council delivered a clear and fact-based rebuttal that dismantled the report’s inaccuracies and exposed its evident bias.

Once again, Councilmember Holly Tillman stood alone in opposition.

Despite having spent over 15 months calling for an investigation, Councilmember Tillman attempted to backpedal, requesting a “softer tone” and offering edits that none of her colleagues supported. Her shift in tone reveals the uncomfortable truth: the investigation she called for is now undermining her own credibility.

Vice Mayor Wan presented the legal facts with clarity, while Councilmember Tillman offered no substantive rebuttal, only emotional appeals and theatrical rhetoric.

Even more concerning, Councilmember Tillman publicly stated that she would submit her separate response to the Civil Grand Jury.

Under California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05, official responses must come from the governing body. Any attempt to submit an individual letter, especially using city letterhead, would be legally invalid and potentially expose the City to liability.

This incident raises serious questions:

* Why is Councilmember Tillman consistently isolated from her colleagues?
* Why do none of her fellow councilmembers, across diverse viewpoints, support her positions?
* Is she using the City of Clayton as a political springboard rather than serving its residents?

According to reports, Councilmember Tillman has expressed interest in running for higher office, including governor. Her behavior increasingly suggests a strategy built on conflict, not collaboration, one focused on self-promotion and photo ops, rather than public service.

Adding to the concerns is the direct involvement of Clayton Pioneer owner Tamara Steiner. For two years, Ms. Steiner has used her platform to push for a Grand Jury investigation and has provided exclusively favorable coverage of Councilmember Tillman, while ignoring or disparaging other councilmembers.

Tamara Steiner has participated in past Civil Grand Jury orientation media panels, including one alongside current Civil Grand Jury Foreperson Peter Appert. At the time, Appert was a juror, not the foreperson. Sources report that she engaged directly with participants, offering input, posing questions, and exceeding the neutral role of a panelist.

Steiner’s influence in Clayton runs deep, bolstered by her and her husband’s long-standing leadership roles in the Clayton Business & Community Association (CBCA), he as a former CBCA president, and she as a vocal presence in city affairs. However, when the City Council revised the CBCA’s special event fee structure to make it more equitable for all organizations, their privileged position was diminished. 

In apparent retaliation, Steiner’s reporting became increasingly combative and one-sided. Just recently, she was seen distributing printed copies of the Civil Grand Jury report at a CBCA General meeting, just days before the Council’s official vote, further blurring the lines between journalism and personal agenda.

Further complicating this matter is that Councilmember Tillman’s husband, Matt Tillman, currently serves as Vice President of Membership for the CBCA. This direct connection between a sitting councilmember and an organization deeply entangled in the political narrative creates a clear conflict of interest.

The CBCA is a registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit, which prohibits political activity under IRS regulations. Any partisan behavior coordinated through or influenced by CBCA leadership places the organization’s nonprofit status at risk.

Finally, the Grand Jury report makes over 18 separate references to the CBCA, while omitting other community organizations entirely. This disproportionate attention, combined with the above connections, demands serious scrutiny.

It is also worth noting that Peter Appert, the current Civil Grand Jury foreperson, is affiliated with a nonprofit organization in Lafayette that closely mirrors the CBCA’s structure and mission. That similarity, paired with the report’s excessive focus on the CBCA, raises even more red flags.

Was this report guided by objective inquiry or shaped by preexisting relationships and organizational bias?

If you want to see the full picture for yourself, without spin or speculation, the following resources provide direct access to the meeting, the City’s official response, and key background information.

Don’t take anyone’s word for it. Watch, read, and decide based on the facts:

* Watch the Full Meeting and Judge for Yourself: Watch the Special Meeting (https://claytonca.granicus.com/player/clip/111)

* The Civil Grand Jury Complaint: (https://contracosta.courts.ca.gov/system/files/general/2505-smallcitybigconcerns.pdf)

* Read the City’s Response to the Civil Grand Jury Report: (https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/3433549/Response_to_GJ_Report_2505.pdf)

* Learn why Holly Tillman has lost the respect of her peers and much of the community: The Truth About Holly Tillman (https://www.claytonwatch.org/p/a-record-of-division-troubling-behavior.html)

* See Holly Tillman in Action (Short Videos): She’s shockingly rude and belligerent, dominating every conversation, snarling accusations, never listening, and bulldozing anyone who dares challenge her. (https://www.claytonwatch.org/p/holly-tillman-in-action-her-words-not.html)

* Holly Tillman: All Talk, No Action: She makes big promises but never delivers. It's all noise, no results. (https://www.claytonwatch.org/p/holly-tillman-all-talk-no-action.html)

The June 24th meeting was not just another council session; it was a turning point. The Council majority stood united, grounded in facts, law, and the will of the people. Councilmember Tillman stood alone, disconnected, defiant, and exposed.

At Clayton Watch, we believe in truth, transparency, and accountability.

We believe public office is a place to serve, not a platform for political ambition. We encourage every resident to stay informed, ask tough questions, and demand better leadership.

Clayton deserves better,

Sincerely,

The Clayton Watch Team

Special Meeting - Please Be There - Starts at 5:00 PM

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.

A Call for Transparency and Accountability

Dear Clayton Community,

The following letter is being shared in the interest of transparency and community awareness. As an engaged and active voice in the community, Clayton Watch is committed to shedding light on the kind of political behavior that has long affected our town.

The author of this letter is an active member of Clayton Watch and a strong advocate for truth, accountability, and the end of divisive politics that have undermined our local values for years. We firmly believe that no one is above scrutiny, even if that means calling the judge and jury out when fairness is compromised.

We encourage you to read this letter with an open mind. The concerns raised are significant and deserve thoughtful consideration. Those involved in perpetuating or enabling such conduct should be held accountable for their actions.

Thank you for your time and commitment to ensuring Clayton remains a community of integrity.

Sincerely,

The Clayton Watch Team

__________________________________________________________________

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, 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 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:

•  Just recently, in a social media post, former Councilmember Peter Cloven acknowledged receiving a Grand Jury letter in September 2024 and noted that similar letters were placed in all council members’ mailboxes. Interestingly enough, 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, including residents, 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
FPPC ID #1471612

cc: Clayton City Council and Staff
City Manager, City of Clayton
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
Hon. Christopher Bowen, Presiding Judge