Top Story, March 28, 2026

Olivia on Marsh Creek: Progress — Or Just Enough to Keep It Alive?

Construction activity has reportedly begun on the long-delayed Olivia on Marsh Creek project, originally approved for 81 residential units.

After years of little to no movement, seeing equipment on site and dirt moving can feel like a big step forward.

And to be fair, progress is a good thing.

But the real question is:

Is this true progress… or just enough activity to keep the project alive?

Because sometimes, moving a little dirt doesn’t necessarily mean you’re moving the project forward.

Good projects withstand good questions. The Olivia project is no exception.

---

Approved Project — But What Was Actually Approved?

Let’s start with the basics.

Yes, this project was approved.

But what exactly was approved matters just as much as the approval itself.

This is not a 55+ senior housing project.
It’s an 81-unit residential development that includes a small number of low-income units, which were required as part of the original deal.

That means there are commitments tied to this project—real ones.
Not just about building homes, but about how and what gets delivered.

So the question becomes:

- Is what’s happening today consistent with what was originally approved?

- Did the developer diligently move forward with construction in 2022 after receiving a one-year extension?

- And perhaps most importantly, has the developer complied with the Conditions of Approval as outlined in the Resolution? 

---

Construction Activity — What Does It Really Mean?

We’re hearing construction has started.

Great. But let’s pause for a second.

What actually counts as “construction”?

Is it:

• Real, measurable progress toward finishing the project
  or
• Just enough activity to show, “Hey, we’re working on it”?

There’s a growing sense in the community that what we may be seeing is just enough movement to check a box.

And if that’s the case, it leads to a very practical question:

Is this activity helping preserve the project’s entitlements by showing ongoing effort, making it harder for the City to step in based on past inactivity?

That’s not pointing fingers, it’s just understanding how the system often works.

---

Financial Reality: Does This Project Pencil Out?

According to reliable sources, the developer has indicated that about $10 million has been secured to move things forward.

Now, in today’s construction world… $10 million doesn’t go nearly as far as it used to.

In fact, it appears to be well short of what would be needed to complete even a portion of a project this size.

So naturally, people are asking:

• Is there enough funding to actually finish Phase 1, or 2, or even 3???
• What happens if the money runs out again?
• Are we looking at another stop-and-start situation?

Because nobody wants to see a project sit half-finished for another decade.

---

Experience Matters: Who Is Building This Project?

There are also questions about execution.

The developer, Bill Jordan, has reportedly only recently obtained his contractor’s license and now plans to build the project.

That raises some fair questions:

• Is there enough experience behind a project of this scale?
• Who’s overseeing the quality and compliance?
• Will seasoned contractors be brought in?

Building a project like this isn’t a learning exercise, it needs to be done right the first time.

---

Phased Construction — Planned or Improvised?

Originally, this was approved as a single 81-unit development.

Now it looks like it’s being built in phases.

That’s fine, if that was part of the plan.

But if not, then it’s worth asking:

Was phasing originally approved, or is this a shift in strategy?

If it’s being phased now, then:

• Each phase should stand on its own
• Infrastructure needs to be complete
• All original conditions still apply
• And yes, low-income housing requirements don’t get pushed down the road indefinitely.

---

Parking: The Issue Nobody Can Ignore

Let’s talk about the one thing everyone notices first, parking.

With 81 units, parking isn’t a side issue. It’s a front-and-center issue.

And right now, there are real concerns that there simply may not be enough of it.

So residents are asking:

• Does the plan realistically match real-world demand?
• Where do guests park?
• What happens when overflow spills into nearby neighborhoods and businesses?

Because we’ve all seen how that story ends.

Instead of waiting for complaints later, this is something the City can get ahead of now.

Reinstating a Parking Permit Committee would be a smart, proactive move, not a reactive one.

---

Affordable Housing: Not Optional

The project includes a small number of low-income units.

That wasn’t a suggestion, it was part of the approval.

So naturally, people want to know:

• Are those units part of what’s being built now?
• If not, when do they show up?
• What ensures they don’t quietly disappear over time?

Because commitments like that matter, to the community and to the integrity of the project.

---

School Mitigation Fees: Paid or Still Pending?

Another important piece:

• Have school mitigation fees been paid?
• If so, when, and how much?
• If not, when are they due?

These aren’t minor details, they directly impact local schools and infrastructure.

---

City Responsibility: Who’s Watching the Store?

At the end of the day, this brings us back to a bigger question:

What role is the City playing right now?

People want to understand:

• Is financial capacity being looked at?
• Are qualifications being reviewed?
• Are original conditions actually being enforced?
• Is there active oversight?

Because once a project gets rolling, it’s a lot harder to hit the brakes.

---

The Bottom Line

This isn’t about stopping development.

Clayton needs thoughtful, well-executed projects.

But it is about making sure things are done:

• As approved
• With proper oversight
• And with the community in mind

So the questions are simple, and fair:

• Is this real progress, or strategic activity to keep entitlements alive?
• Is the project financially solid?
• Is there enough experience behind it?
• Is parking actually adequate?
• Are low-income housing commitments being met?
• Are we addressing impacts now… or later?

---

Clayton Residents Deserve Clarity

This project may be moving forward.

And that’s fine, if it’s being done the right way.

But before it gets too far down the road, the public deserves clear, honest answers.

Because in the end:

Moving dirt is easy. Building it right, and earning public trust—is the hard part.

---

The Clayton Watch Team

Top Story, March 12, 2026

Scare Tactics, Bad Data, and the Truth About Clayton’s Finances

Independent audits and documented financial records tell a very different story than the one you’ve been sold.

For years, Clayton residents have been fed the same alarming story: the city is on the verge of financial collapse. That narrative has echoed at council meetings, in public comments, and in official reports, including coverage in the now-defunct local newspaper formerly owned by Tamara Steiner. But step away from the rhetoric and look at the actual financial records. A very different picture comes into focus.

If Clayton were truly going broke, the city’s independent auditors would be the first to say so.

“The claim that Clayton is ‘going broke’ has become a talking point — not a factual statement.”

Instead, the most recent audit shows a city that has corrected past internal control failures, strengthened financial oversight, and continues to operate with stable reserves. The narrative of crisis simply does not match the documented record.

Where the Narrative Started

The “Clayton is going broke” story has a clear origin. It emerged during the push for a $400 per-parcel tax proposal championed by former Mayor Peter Cloven, Carl Wolfe, Holly Tillman, and former City Manager Reina Schwartz. Residents were warned that without significant new taxes, the city’s financial future was in jeopardy.

That message relied on worst-case projections and fear-based framing rather than Clayton’s actual financial position. Even after the proposal failed to gain traction in a citywide survey, the crisis narrative kept circulating, that Clayton's finances were somehow in crisis.

That rhetoric continued under the next city manager, Bret Prebula, who repeated many of the same claims about Clayton’s financial condition and continued pushing the idea that the city was facing a fiscal crisis. Prebula’s tenure ultimately ended with his departure from the city after a relatively short and troubled period.

The playbook was predictable: manufacture the perception of instability, then present tax increases as the only solution, rather than doing the hard work of actually fixing the problems. The city’s audited financial records tell a different story.

What the Latest Audit Actually Shows

At the City Council meeting on March 3, 2026, the City reviewed its Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2025. The independent audit produced no surprises and no alarm bells.

The fiscal year ended with a manageable deficit that had already been anticipated and budgeted for. More significantly, auditors reported no material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in the City’s internal financial controls. That is a meaningful improvement from prior years.

From FY2020 through FY2023, auditors repeatedly flagged serious internal control problems that required corrective action. Those were legitimate concerns.

Under City Manager Reina Schwartz, the city’s books went unreconciled for roughly 18 months — and the city was defrauded of approximately $50,000.

When the fraud was uncovered, no formal investigation was ordered. Then-Mayor Peter Cloven did not pursue the matter. City management let it go. Yet some of the very individuals involved during that period continue to portray the current council majority as reckless.

With new staffing and stronger oversight, those control failures have been corrected. For the second consecutive year, auditors reported no findings. That is exactly what responsible financial management looks like.

The $350,000 Revenue Change — Context Matters

Another point routinely raised in “crisis” discussions involves the Successor Agency, which managed the wind-down of Clayton’s former Redevelopment Agency after the state eliminated redevelopment agencies in 2012. For several years, Clayton received roughly $350,000 annually from the County to administer those activities.

That work is now complete. The funding will decline and eventually disappear.

But here’s the critical context: that revenue was always temporary. It was administrative funding tied to a finite task, not a permanent source of operating income. Its decline was anticipated and built into the city’s financial projections. Calling it a crisis is a deliberate misrepresentation.

The Civil Grand Jury Issue

Another fuel source for the crisis narrative was a recent Civil Grand Jury report. Evidence has since surfaced indicating that financial information used in the complaint process was altered or misrepresented, creating a distorted picture of the city’s finances.

This is not a minor procedural matter. Under California law, submitting falsified information during an official proceeding can expose individuals to potential criminal charges. This issue is now receiving closer scrutiny.

When inaccurate financial data is used to influence an official investigation, it doesn’t just mislead — it undermines the integrity of the entire process.

Stay tuned. More information on this issue is expected to come to light in the coming months.

Leadership and Priorities

Clayton’s financial debates have also exposed a deeper question about where elected officials focus their energy.

For years, some council members devoted significant time to outside organizations, regional boards, community groups, and advocacy efforts, while key city priorities went underfunded and underattended. Some spent years engaged with organizations like ABAG or groups like CBCA, while infrastructure maintenance, long-term financial planning, and basic community upkeep were treated as afterthoughts.

Others pushed controversial development proposals like Olivia on Marsh Creek, marketed as a 55-and-over senior housing development that would supposedly generate minimal traffic and require fewer parking spaces. That claim was later discredited through research published by Clayton Watch. The reduced parking rationale leaned heavily on a study from a senior housing project in Pennsylvania, used to justify lower standards for a Clayton project that was not legally restricted to seniors.

Clayton Watch’s research exposed those inconsistencies and raised serious questions about the project’s justification. It was pushed through by a long-time council member and former mayor, Julie Pierce, who served nearly 28 years, with little clear rationale to show for it.

Serving on a city council is not a social or networking exercise. It demands consistent focus on the city itself: responsible budgeting, maintained reserves, investment in infrastructure, and careful stewardship of public resources.

The Bottom Line

The “Clayton is going broke” narrative is a political instrument, not a financial reality.

 The city’s independent audit says otherwise. Clayton maintains over $7 million in reserves. Internal financial controls have been corrected. The decline of temporary redevelopment funding was planned for, not a surprise. There is no crisis,  there is a manufactured story designed to drive fear and justify policy changes that never needed to happen.

The real question isn’t whether Clayton is going broke. It clearly is not.

The real question is: why have certain individuals worked so hard to convince residents that it is?

A city sitting on over $7 million in reserves was told it was going broke. Someone was counting on residents not checking.

As more information surfaces regarding the financial data submitted during the Civil Grand Jury process, the public may soon have a much clearer picture of how that narrative was constructed, and by whom. Providing false or misleading financial information in an official proceeding is not simply poor judgment. It can carry serious legal consequences.

Stay tuned.

Clayton Watch will continue to research the facts and report what the public deserves to know.

The facts are on the record. The audit speaks for itself. The residents of Clayton deserve nothing less than the truth.

The Public Should Not Be Subsidizing Private Nonprofit Events

When required City fees are redirected, the burden doesn’t disappear, it shifts to residents.

Dear Clayton Residents,

Good government relies on consistent rules and transparent decisions.

One of the simplest principles is this: when an organization uses public property, it pays the required fee. Those charges are not symbolic. They exist to reimburse the community for the very real costs the City incurs, closing streets, rerouting traffic, assigning public works crews, providing police presence, managing risk, handling wear and tear on parks, and completing cleanup and restoration once an event ends. Staff time is diverted from other priorities. Normal services are interrupted. Residents experience detours, noise, parking limitations, and restricted access to their own downtown. Those impacts remain whether a fee is collected or not.

At a recent City Sponsored Special Events Committee meeting, Carl Wolfe, president of the Clayton Business and Community Association (CBCA), asked during public comment that required downtown and park special-event fees for use of the entire downtown and The Grove be treated instead as sponsorship support for the City’s Concerts in the Grove series. Click here to watch the video of Carl Wolfe speaking at the meeting. 10:13 on the timer is where he starts to speak. (What he is suggesting may sound generous, but it can also come across as sneaky, and possibly illegal.)

But it is important to recognize what it means. This is not new money. It is a request to relabel funds owed for the exclusive use of Main Street, our downtown, including The Grove Park, and apply them somewhere else.

And remember, Mr. Wolfe is a former Councilmember and former Mayor. He understands how municipal finance works, or does he? He should know that when revenue owed to the City is waived or redirected, someone else ultimately absorbs that cost.

That someone else is the taxpayer.

Once those fees are paid, they are public money. They are deposited into the General Fund and belong to the residents of Clayton, not the CBCA, not event organizers, and not any individual requester. They are no different from any other user fees collected by the City. No private organization gets to pay a bill and then dictate where the money goes or reclaim it in another form. Public funds are controlled through the City’s budget process on behalf of taxpayers, period.

Over the past two years, CBCA leadership has pushed to cancel or reduce the special-event fee (as reflected in the Master Fee Schedule adopted in August 2023), despite the fact that the organization has been paying only a fraction of what comparable private users would normally pay. Public financial filings show that the CBCA holds more than $300,000 in the bank. By any reasonable measure, they have the ability and the means to meet their obligations without asking to shift those costs onto residents.

When events occupy our downtown, streets close, personnel are deployed, and cleanup follows. Those bills do not vanish. If the City does not collect the required fees, the expense shifts to residents.

Many taxpayers share a straightforward belief:

• The public should not subsidize private organizations and their events.
• Groups should raise sponsorships, donations, and vendor revenue to fund their own festivals. That is part of hosting them.

There is also a practical reality

The Concerts in the Grove already receives generous support from Clayton businesses, families, and volunteers. Residents may reasonably ask why money owed for exclusive use of public property should be rerouted away from the general fund and labeled something else.

Clayton Watch is focused on process, not personalities.

We are not aware of any adopted policy that allows mandatory rental fees to be converted into sponsorship credit.

If such authority exists, the City should identify where it is written, how it works, and whether it is available equally to every organization.

• Consistency protects public trust.

A constructive path forward

Clayton has a proud tradition of voluntary sponsorships.

We strongly encourage the CBCA to return to that tradition. Since the Master Use Agreement (MUA) was canceled, the organization has stopped contributing financially to Concerts in the Grove, a sharp departure from prior years when support was routinely provided.

Choosing not to contribute while simultaneously asking to redirect money owed to the City sends the wrong message to residents.

If the CBCA wishes to support the concerts, it can do what businesses, families, and other sponsors do, write a check.

At the same time, it should continue paying required fees for the use of our streets, our downtown, and our parks, just as any other group would.

Clayton Watch supports community events and the many people who make them possible. But the financial rules governing public assets must remain clear, consistent, and fair.

Because when the rules are steady, trust follows. And when trust follows, Clayton wins.

Respectfully,

Clayton Watch

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