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://www.cc-courts.org/civil/docs/grandjury/2024-2025/2505/2505-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

Don’t Blindly Accept the Report - Learn the Facts

By Clayton Watch

After the Grand Jury report was released, Clayton Watch responded swiftly with a detailed, fact-based rebuttal.

A few days later, Vice Mayor Jeff Wan published an even more comprehensive analysis, directly addressing and dismantling many of the report’s claims.

To those still accepting the Grand Jury report at face value — we urge you to examine the evidence for yourself. Wan’s analysis clearly demonstrates that the report is filled with inaccuracies, misleading statements, and logical inconsistencies.

Even the title of the report raises serious concerns. How did such a biased and inflammatory headline pass approval by the foreperson and supervising judge? That alone casts doubt on the credibility of the entire process.

It’s time to stop blindly accepting the report’s narrative and start demanding accountability from those who influenced and fed misinformation to the Grand Jury.

Specifically, it’s time to hold former City Manager Bret Prebula, Councilmember Holly Tillman, former Councilmember Peter Cloven, and Clayton Pioneer owner Tamara Steiner accountable for their roles in misleading the Grand Jury and the public.

For those who haven’t seen Vice Mayor Wan’s letter, we’ve included it below for your review.
_______________________________________

On the Grand Jury Report Regarding Clayton 

By Vice Mayor Jeff Wan

Recently the Contra Costa County Grand Jury issued a report regarding Clayton.  And while the City will respond to the report as required, I wanted to offer my own thoughts as it is a matter of community interest.

Overall, it's disappointing to see the amount of time and taxpayer resources spent on a report that not only gets several matters of fact wrong, but also relies on these errors to draw conclusions not supported by any evidence.  While the report did identify certain matters of fact correctly, it contained a significant amount of errors and left out context that would impact a reader's understanding of the information presented to such a degree that the report is not useful.  In addition, the Grand Jury's recommendations venture into the realm of policy making, something they were certainly not elected to do.

The report focused on four areas: Turnover, Agenda Setting, Financial Management, and Committee Activity.  I'll touch on each area below and illustrate substantial flaws in each area.

On Turnover:

From the report:

First, this table has three factual errors.  The first is that Gary Napper is missing - he retired effective at the end of July 2019.  Second, Ikani Taumoepeau name is spelled incorrectly.  Third, our former Police Chief Warren also served as an acting City Manager during the time period chosen.  The Grand Jury report also misspells the name of our former Community Development Director.  This is consistent with the level of diligence performed by the Grand Jury in issuing their report.

Second, while the turnover in City Managers is undesirable, it is not accurate to imply that all turnover is for the same reasons.  Some have left due to retirement, others seeking career growth, others for higher compensation, and others because the role may not have been a good fit. In some cases when a person separates, there are Non Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) or information subject to attorney-client privilege that is unable to be shared publicly. For example, if there were inappropriate behavior, it would need to be addressed but that action would likely be taken in a way not able to be shared publicly. In short, trying to create a narrative that people are leaving for the same reason, is misleading and false.

Beyond misleading however, is inflating the number of people who have left to sensationalize a narrative. For example, the claim that the City has gone through twelve City Managers. In reality, including the resignation of our last City Manager in early 2024, the real number is four (five if you include our current City Manager) which is inclusive of the retirement of a person with 17 years of tenure (Napper, Taumoepeau, Schwartz, and Prebula). The only way that the figure comes to twelve (actually fourteen if using the Grand Jury's own stated methodology) is if those serving in interim and acting roles were counted. But this is intentionally misleading as these are different roles. There is a reason the title is “INTERIM City Manager”, and not simply “City Manager”. They are literally different roles - the difference in title is a pretty good clue of that. 

Those who take on interim roles intend to only stay in the role as long as is needed to find a person on a permanent basis. In fact, many of the people who take on interim roles are retirees who are restricted from working over a certain number of hours. 

In addition, including in this list folks like Hoffmeister, Warren, Walcker, McEachin, and Rubier lacks sufficient context as to be misleading.  While technically these individuals did serve as Acting in the role of City Manager - they did so all for a very short time during times when the City Manager was on vacation, or during transitions between full time employees and interim employees.  In each case none were actually selected by actions of the Council.

Later the Grand Jury report asserts the consequences of turnover as follow:

Following a similar pattern, the assertion makes errors of fact, and errors of omission.  The Grand Jury report asserts potential savings of $151K to $165K.  This is derived by comparing the amount paid to a contractor, 4 Leaf Inc., to the salary range of a new position created ($226K - $75K = $151K, $226K - $61K = $1655K.)  Even taking the comparison at face value, this assertion would be wrong as it does not include the benefit load of a full time employee, which in Clayton is approximately 20% - 30%.  This is an error of fact.  

In addition, code enforcement was not performed by the Community Development Director as the report asserts - this was performed by a different role.  What this means is that the comparison is not apples to apples and the potential savings are unfounded.  It turns out that the code enforcement role performed by 4 Leaf was performed so well that the City ended up hiring the individual to continue code enforcement on a full time basis as an employee.

It is also important to note that the Council only hires the City Manager, and the City Attorney.  All other positions of the City are hired by the City Manager and Council has no role in that process.

The next conclusion the Grand Jury draws is just as spurious:

While the original information that the firm, HdL stated was an estimated 2,000 businesses, this was based on false information provided by a former City Manager.  When the current Council pressed HdL on this analysis, the actual figures turned out to be something different.  City staff had previously represented that the City had approximately 1100 active businesses in the City.  Extrapolating from there, HdL estimated that through their efforts they could discover an additional 900 businesses and therefore expand the pool of licensed businesses.  If this were possible, it would increase City revenues.  

After review, it turns out the information that prior City leadership (no longer employed with the City) overstated the actual number of businesses in the City.  The actual number is closer to 500.  This information was available as of March of this year and presented during a Budget and Audit Committee meeting, and then later at a regular Council meeting on April 1st.  That the Grand Jury omitted this information which contradicts the conclusions drawn by the Grand Jury.

On Agenda Setting:

In this section, the Grand Jury makes a critical error - they treat Council Guidelines as binding rules which they are not.  The Guidelines represent norms that have been adopted by the Council, but they are not controlling, nor is there any rule that requires they must be followed at all times.  This should have been obvious to the Grand Jury since they are literally called "guidelines".  Perhaps the item under Council Values that states "Humor is an important tool" could have been a clue, or the statement in the Guidelines that says, "Traditions are respected but not always binding."

From the Grand Jury report:

Even here the Grand Jury continues to make errors of fact when it states that things occurred contrary to these Guidelines.  The Guidelines clearly state that it is the Mayor's discretion as to which meeting a requested agenda item will appear.  Exercising this discretion is well within the scope of the Guidelines.  

In addition, the Guidelines also require a written description to be provided - and in the example provided they identify that this did not occur until March of 2024.  This contradicts the claim that a formal agenda request was made in the Fall of 2023.  During the calendar year 2023 when I served as Mayor, I never received any written request as called for by our Guidelines.  However, during the course of such verbal requests, the nature of the request changed multiple times.  It ranged from a 360 degree review, to toxic or hostile work environment, to turnover, to overstepping, to training.  This highlights the importance of a written request - so appropriate planning and staff time could be utilized in preparing agenda items.

Given the turnover during 2024, it's not surprising that the City's priorities were on staffing and continuity, not entertaining requests that changed each time they were made.

To be clear, our City Attorney is able to take action independently if they have evidence or suspect any action that presents risk to the City. Without being prompted, our City Attorney has in the past offered counsel and advice unsolicited in areas they felt appropriate, and has given direction on other matters as well. Our City Manager has authority to engage a third party for up to $30K without any other approval from Council that could be used to engage a third party investigation should they so choose. Both of these roles exercise independent judgment and did not taken any action related to the request for investigation. 

What the Grand Jury report neglects to mention is that upon taking the role of Mayor in December of 2024, Mayor Trupiano reached out to Councilmember Tillman in an effort to address her previous requests for an investigation into fellow Councilmembers and training.  A result of that meeting was an agreement to propose an ad hoc committee in order to facilitate a governance training workshop for Council and staff.  Councilmember Tillman stated that this ad hoc committee and training satisfies her previous requests.

The leaps of logic and false assertions of fact by the Grand Jury continue:

First, the meetings being referenced here were established by the Interim City Manager, not the City Manager.  The distinction in titles is significant.  

Second, only those committees formed by formal action of the Council are subject to the Brown Act.  If the Interim City Manager calls for a meeting to discuss agenda setting, prioritization, etc. and includes less than a quorum, and certain members of City staff, that does not constitute a Meeting per the Brown Act.  To assert as much is incorrect on the law.

Third, two members who are less than a quorum of the Council can meet with whomever they choose (excepting on those topics that they represent a standing committee) and it would not be a covered meeting by the Brown Act.

The rest of the conclusions drawn in this section rely on this erroneous application of the law.  There was no Agenda Setting Committee, there were agenda setting meetings.  There was no change in policy because no actual policy was adopted.  Policies are not captured in the Council Guidelines, as those are guidelines, not controlling policies.  As there was no committee, it clearly could not be subject to the Brown Act.  Basically every assertion of fact and conclusion in this section is false.

On Financial Management:

The Grand Jury report in this section fairs no better in terms of accurately describing the facts regarding the Financial Sustainability Committee:

While members of the Financial Sustainability Committee did speak at our 4.1.25 meeting, the statements made were not that of the Committee itself, rather from individual members speaking as individuals.  This was clarified during the meeting - that the Committee has taken no action in terms of adopting any kind of report to Council.  Therefore the Council did not hear a report of the Committee's activities as the Grand Jury asserts.

As the Grand Jury identifies, a quorum of the Committee was not achieved until 4.16.24.  During the first 6 months of a quorum existing, the Committee met twice.  Hardly sufficient experience to review performance, and again, the guidelines cited by the Grand Jury are not binding.  

When we get to the section on addressing the deficit, the Grand Jury's report fares even worse when it comes to identifying the facts:

Every single figure cited by the Grand Jury in the table above is wrong.  All of the City's audited financial statements can be found on the City's website here:  https://claytonca.gov/finance/accounting-financial-reporting/audited-financial-statements/

For FY20, here is the relevant page from the City's audited financial statements (ACFR):

Here for FY20, the Grand Jury misstates the Revenue, Expense and "Net Surplus".  I put "Net Surplus" in quotes because that is not an actual term that is used in financial reporting for the City.  Instead, the correct term is "Change in Fund Balance".  They do this for every year presented in the table.  Consider, that 100% of the figures that are used are wrong.  Excerpts from each of FY21, FY22, and FY23:

 

And while I have previously identified significant issues in terms of finances that the City will need to address, the fact that the Grand Jury so obviously misstates the facts casts doubt on any conclusion they may draw.

The actual General Fund results as assembled from the audited financial statements are as follows:

The above table is inclusive of a prior period adjustment made during the FY22 audit regarding the FY21 year of approximately $52K.  FY22 and FY23 reflect receipt of ARPA funds.

When talking about increasing taxes, the Grand Jury had this to say:

The Council in fact, did not adopt a reserve policy to reduce its reserve to 40% of General Fund expenses.  What the Council did during the 3.5.24 meeting was to adopt a reserve policy that established that "the minimum target reserve of the General Reserve will be maintained at forty percent (40%) of General Fund Operating Expenditures."  There is a stark difference between adopting a policy to reduce the reserves, and a policy that reduces the minimum target percentage.  Keep in mind that the current reserves have historically been near 100% of general fund operating expenditures and adopting the new policy does not prohibit the City from maintaining a higher level of reserves which it currently does.

The second assertion, that the City has declined to take any revenue enhancement measures, is also false.  Back in early 2022, the City conducted a survey regarding potential support for a tax measure in Nov-22.  The results of the survey were clear - that residents were satisfied with the quality of life in Clayton, generally not aware of the financial challenges facing the City, and that there was not sufficient support to pass a ballot measure increasing taxes.  While it was always the case that the City needed to do more diligence in assessing the situation, the survey results solidified that fact.  Rather than pursue a tax measure without all the information, we as a Council have been doing the work over the past two years to determine what is actually needed.

In addition to this information gathering, 

• The City has updated its investment policy and engaged a third party for more managed services which should yield higher returns.
• The City has updated its master fee schedule to bring more current the costs associated with providing services for rentals, uses, and administrative services.  This included adding a special event fee for larger events that consume more of the City's resources.
• We engaged HDL to assist managing our business license renewal process, including efforts to determine if there were additional businesses operating in the City that required a license in an effort to increase revenue.
• We renegotiated our waste management service agreement with Republic Services to bring us in compliance with new statewide mandates for recycling.

All of these things are revenue enhancement measures and the statement by the Grand Jury is false.  While only focusing on raising taxes, the Grand Jury ventures into areas of policy making.  This is what the Council was elected to do, not the Grand Jury.

In addition, the Council did take action in 2024 directing staff to work towards a tax measure to be placed on the November 2026 ballot.  We did this at our 3.5.24 meeting, the minutes are as follows:

For the Grand Jury to assert that the Council has declined to take any revenue enhancement measures is demonstrably false.  When I spoke with the Grand Jury, I provided all of this evidence.  It appears they did not consider the information that I provided.

On Committee Activity:

In asserting that committees take action without Council approval, the Grand Jury states the following:

As the Negotiation Committee was an Ad Hoc committee, no agendas nor minutes are called for, and this has not been the practice of the City.   Given the matter was of public interest, I did publish ongoing information about the negotiation efforts here and here and here and here.  I also wrote about it in two local papers, discussed the issue in a townhall, among other avenues.  To imply that there was something secret going on is inconsistent with the evidence.

In fact, the offer made was not rejected, it was identified as unchanged from prior discussions and as a result no action was taken.  The Ad Hoc Committee invited further discussion but none was offered.  Neither the City nor the ad hoc committee heard back after that.  The Ad Hoc Committee in fact did not take any action on behalf of the City as a Committee is not authorized to do so.  The Grand Jury attempts to equivocate on what constitutes taking action, however, declining to take action to bring something forward is not equivalent to taking action. Otherwise the list of what is declined would be infinite.

Regarding Committees reporting out, the Grand Jury states the following:

The Grand Jury identifies that attendance at various Committees occurred and criticizes the lack of detail provided, citing the "requirement" in the Council Guidelines that Committees shall keep the rest of the Council informed.  The Grand Jury neglects to consider that in the same guidelines it states that if any Councilmember wants more information, they are responsible for requesting it.  There were no such requests that were denied.  

The Grand Jury goes on to criticize the move to written Council reports as lacking in transparency.  On the contrary, having a written record is far superior than a verbal statement that is unsearchable, and often drifts into matters of no substance or things unrelated to City business.

The Grand Jury does criticize the number of Special Meetings, and how minutes are posted.  Often times because of the City's small staff, especially for committee meetings, scheduling has been challenging, and preparing materials timely has been challenging.  The decision to agendized something as a Special Meeting or a regular meeting is often made at the staff level in addition to preparing the actual agenda based on prioritization of ongoing demands.  

Consider that our last Budget an Audit Committee meeting (4.21.25) was agendized as a Special Meeting.  This time and date was known for weeks, however due to staff's work on preparing materials, the information was not published 72 hours in advance - closer to 70 hours.  Nevertheless, it contained an agenda item for public comment on non-agenda items, and was treated exactly as a regularly scheduled meeting would be.

I agree that less Special Meetings would be preferable and staff is working towards preparing materials more in advance.

The same is true for minutes.  In operation, the Council does not take minutes, nor publish them - that is the role of staff.  I and other Councilmembers have encouraged staff to post prominently and timely the minutes of all of our meetings.

Regarding the findings:

As I've demonstrated above, the findings identified by the Grand Jury are either factually wrong, misleading, lacking context, or some combination of all three.  It is unfortunate that taxpayer dollars were squandered in this effort.  

It's also odd the time periods chosen for the review.  In conducting any kind of review, the time period in question is typically held constant to give a consistent picture of what is being discussed.  In this case, the Grand Jury chose different time periods for different areas of their report.  This haphazard approach was taken for a reason that is not provided by the Grand Jury.

Regarding the recommendations:

Given the level of factual errors and omissions, it would be imprudent to base actions upon such poorly crafted recommendations.