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.
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
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
%20(1).png)
