Top Story

Clayton Watch Political Action Committee

Why Clayton Watch Went Quiet on the Civil Grand Jury Report — Until Now

For nearly a year, Clayton Watch Political Action Committee has raised concerns
regarding Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury Report No. 2505, Clayton: Small City, Big Concerns. Those concerns center on what Clayton Watch believes are factual inaccuracies, omissions, and interpretive statements that do not align with the underlying public record.

Because Civil Grand Jury reports carry significant authority and become a permanent part of the public record, we believed it was important to proceed carefully, responsibly, and based on verifiable facts.

Why We Took Action

Before taking any formal action, Clayton Watch spent months reviewing:

• - Audited financial records
• - City Council minutes and agendas
• - Staffing timelines
• - Brown Act requirements
• - Revenue planning actions taken by the City
• - California Civil Grand Jury procedures and standards

Only after completing that review did we conclude that portions of Report 2505 raised legitimate questions concerning factual accuracy, omissions, and narrative framing.

What We Did

Contrary to what some may believe, Clayton Watch did not immediately go public, contact the media, or launch political attacks. Instead, we pursued every available avenue for review.

After completing our research and analysis, Clayton Watch formally notified:

• - The Superior Court
• - The Presiding Judge
• - County Counsel
• - The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
• - The Civil Grand Jurors' Association

In addition, we submitted a Public Information Request seeking records relating to the preparation of Report 2505. That request was denied.

Only after taking those steps did Clayton Watch file a Petition with the Contra Costa County Superior Court seeking review of concerns surrounding Report 2505.

The Petition was ultimately denied. However, the denial was not based on a determination that the underlying concerns lacked merit. Rather, Clayton Watch was advised that available administrative remedies should first be exhausted before judicial intervention would potentially become appropriate.

We followed that guidance.

As a result, Clayton Watch then filed a formal Administrative Complaint through the Civil Grand Jury complaint process, requesting review of the procedures used to gather, verify, review, and approve Report 2505.

It is important to understand that Clayton Watch used the very same Grand Jury complaint process through which concerns regarding local government are brought before the Grand Jury in the first place. Grand Jury investigations do not simply materialize on their own. They begin with information, allegations, complaints, or concerns that are presented to the Grand Jury for consideration.

Whatever information or concerns ultimately led to Report 2505 becoming the subject of an investigation necessarily entered the system through that same process. Clayton Watch sought no special treatment and requested no extraordinary remedies. We simply used the same established procedures available to every resident of Contra Costa County, and asked that our concerns receive the same fair, impartial, and meaningful review afforded to others.

In short, every available avenue — judicial, administrative, legislative, and informational — was pursued before speaking publicly in greater detail.

Why We Went Quiet

Many residents have asked why Clayton Watch appeared to go quiet regarding the Civil Grand Jury matter.

The answer is simple. We were advised to exhaust every available remedy before escalating the matter further, and that is exactly what we did.

We also intentionally refrained from publicly discussing many aspects of the Administrative Complaint because the complaint process emphasizes confidentiality. We believed it was important to respect that process and allow the system an opportunity to review the concerns internally before discussing them publicly.

This has never been about political theater. It has always been about accountability, fairness, accuracy, and protecting the integrity of the public record.

Why This Matters

Civil Grand Jury reports carry significant authority. They influence public opinion, shape political narratives, impact reputations, and become permanent parts of the public record while carrying the appearance of judicial credibility.

It is true that Civil Grand Jury reports are recommendations and are not legally binding. In practice, however, the reports often have a much greater impact.

The Civil Grand Jury gets to fire the first cannon. The report is released, headlines are written, and narratives quickly form in the court of public opinion. Only later do the affected agencies and officials have an opportunity to respond through formal written replies, and by then far fewer people read the responses than read the original headlines.

That reality makes accuracy, fairness, and factual verification especially important. Even though the recommendations themselves are not binding, the public perceptions created by an official Grand Jury report can have lasting consequences for communities, public institutions, and individual reputations.

The concerns raised by Clayton Watch are not about whether the Civil Grand Jury should investigate government. It absolutely should.

The question is whether every institution entrusted with public confidence — including the Civil Grand Jury itself — should be willing to address legitimate concerns regarding accuracy, fairness, and accountability.

We believe the answer is yes.

Where Things Stand Today

At this time, Clayton Watch is consulting with legal counsel regarding potential next steps. Two avenues are under active consideration:

1. Writ of Mandate — seeking judicial review by petitioning the court to compel action, which would name the Civil Grand Jury as the responding party.
2. Legislative Reform — petitioning the State Legislature to change the laws governing the Civil Grand Jury, in order to strengthen oversight, transparency, and accountability within California's Civil Grand Jury system.

In addition, Clayton Watch has contacted the Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office and encouraged it to review whether the information presented in connection with Report 2505 was accurate and properly verified. The integrity of the Civil Grand Jury process depends upon the accuracy of the information presented to it, and upon the public's confidence that official reports are based upon verified facts. (The letter sent to the District Attorney's Office is available for public review below.)

Because transparency matters, we are making the underlying documents available for public review. We encourage residents to read the filings, examine the supporting exhibits, and draw their own conclusions.

📄 Read the Petition Filed with the Superior Court: View the Petition

📄 Read the Administrative Complaint and Supporting Exhibits: View the Complaint

📄 Read the Letter Sent to the District Attorney's Office: View the Letter

Clayton Watch will continue to pursue every appropriate avenue available, including administrative review, consultation with legal counsel regarding a potential Writ of Mandate, and discussions concerning possible legislative reforms. This effort is not about relitigating past disagreements. It is about ensuring that official reports carrying the authority and credibility of the Civil Grand Jury are factually verified, procedurally fair, and free from unsupported narratives or unverified information originating from sources advocating a particular outcome.

Our hope is that, by pursuing this matter responsibly and through the proper channels, future Civil Grand Jury reports affecting Clayton, or any other community, will be guided by accuracy, fairness, and accountability, rather than becoming sources of unnecessary division or avoidable harm to a community's reputation.

As developments occur, we will continue to keep the community informed.

Accountability is not an attack on the Civil Grand Jury. Accountability is what gives the Civil Grand Jury its credibility in the first place.

Acknowledgment

Clayton Watch would like to recognize and thank Gary Hood, Bill Walcutt, and the other members of the Clayton Watch Committee for the many hours spent reviewing public records, examining financial documents, researching applicable laws and procedures, preparing filings, and documenting the issues discussed in this article.

This effort has always been driven by a commitment to facts, fairness, accountability, and the belief that engaged citizens play an important role in promoting transparency and public trust.

Clayton Watch also extends its appreciation to the many residents who have followed this issue, shared information, and encouraged a thoughtful, fact-based discussion about accountability and the integrity of the public record.

— Clayton Watch Political Action Committee

Top Story

Civil Grand Jury Watches Government, But Who’s Watching Them?  

By David King, Diablo Gazette / Photos Added by Clayton Watch 

2025/2026 Civil Grand Jury with the Board of Supervisors

The Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury is annually impaneled to investigate city and county governments, special districts and certain nonprofit corporations to ensure functions are performed in a lawful, economical and efficient manner. Recommendations resulting from these investigations are listed.

This year, a just released report 2602 is a highly critical Civil Grand Jury review of Contra Costa County’s Internal Audit Division (IAD), concluding that the County’s internal auditing system is outdated, lacks independence, and does not comply with professional auditing standards or California law and says the current structure undermines both independence and public accountability.

Among the Findings
The Grand Jury says the County’s internal audit operation has major structural problems.

One of the more egregious findings is the Internal Audit Division has not had an outside quality review in more than 25 years, even though auditing standards require one every 3–5 years.

It cites examples indicating the audit division is functioning in what the report calls a major conflict of interest and “independence impairment.”

Oversight from the Board of Supervisors is described as weak and largely symbolic.

The audit division operates under a governing administrative bulletin written in 1975 that has never been modernized to reflect current standards.

The County does not publicly post completed internal audit reports or annual audit plans online and lacks several standard safeguards expected in modern government auditing.

Jury Recommendations
The Grand Jury recommends sweeping reforms, including:

* Creating a dedicated Audit Committee and adding outside/public financial experts.
* Ending the practice of auditors helping prepare the County’s financial reports. 

* Requiring quarterly reporting to supervisors.
* Publishing audit reports publicly online.
* Bringing the division into compliance with Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) and Government Accountability Office (GAGAS) standards.

The County must respond to the Court regarding recommendations offered by the report.

Last year when the Clayton City Council had to respond to its Civil Grand Jury Report 2505. The Council responded with an emphatic “no” to most of the report’s recommendations, citing the investigators used inaccurate figures, dismissed audited figures and other information provided and misunderstands local government procedures and functions.

In addition, believing the report was detrimental to the City’s reputation, the local Political Action Committee, Clayton Watch, submitted a petition to the Court requesting a correction or amendment to their report.

Did they do it? It doesn’t appear so.

“The new Pinole Civil Grand Jury Report 2604 shows what good oversight looks like: facts, benchmarks, and transparency,” said Gary Hood, a member of the Clayton Watch and Clayton resident who filed the petition.

“Last year’s Clayton report did the opposite. It started with a conclusion, then worked backward and failed badly to support it.

“Maybe it’s time for the Civil Grand Jury to look in the mirror. A watchdog should be held to the same standard it demands of everyone else. Political influence has no place in the process. The public deserves independence, objectivity, and facts. And maybe it’s time someone on the judiciary side of the street did their job. Who watches the watchdog?”   

Civil Grand Jury Report - Update

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

by David King, Diablo Gazette (October 2025)

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

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

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

Not so fast. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Information Request 7-8-25

To the Clayton Community,

A Public Information Request (PIR) was filed with Contra Costa County by the Clayton Watch Team in response to serious concerns about the accuracy and integrity of the Civil Grand Jury report on the City of Clayton. After identifying substantial evidence that the report is deeply flawed — including factual inaccuracies, key omissions, and misleading conclusions — we felt it was necessary to pursue official answers and documentation.

As part of our effort to hold the Grand Jury accountable and restore public trust, we submitted a formal letter to the Presiding Judge of the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Below, you will find a copy of that letter, along with two responses we received from the Court’s Chief Counsel and another from the Public Information Officer.

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

7-8-25

Hon. Terri Mockler
, Supervising Judge
Contra Costa County Superior Court
725 Court Street
Martinez, CA 94553

Dear Judge Mockler,

Under the California Public Records Act § 6250 et seq., we are requesting an opportunity to obtain copies of public records with respect to the Contra Costa County 2024-2025 Civil Grand Jury. Specifically, we are requesting a copy of all the referral/complaint forms filed against the City of Clayton for the 2024-2025 Civil Grand Jury investigation and Report 2505, dated May 16, 2025, titled “Clayton: Small City, Big Concerns” with the names of the persons filing the referrals/complaints redacted.

The California Public Records Act requires a response within ten business days If access to the records we are requesting will take longer, please contact us with information about when we might receive copies of the requested records.

If you deny any or all of this request, please cite each specific exemption you feel justifies the refusal to release the information and notify us of the appeal procedures available under the law.

Please email the records requested to: claytonwatch94517@gmail.com

Thank you for considering our request.

Bill Walcutt
Clayton Watch
Political Action Committee
FPPC ID #1471612

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

Courts Response:

From: Media Information <mediainfo@contracosta.courts.ca.gov>
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 12:33 PM
To: claytonwatch94517@gmail.com
Cc: Media Information <mediainfo@contracosta.courts.ca.gov>
Subject: Public Records Request

Good afternoon,

The Court has received your request for public records, attached. Thank you for your inquiry. This office coordinates these requests and responses thereto.

Please note that the California Public Records Act does not apply to the courts. (See Gov. Code § 7921.000 et seq.; Sander v. State Bar of California (2013) 58 Cal.4th 300, 309.) Rather, requests for judicial administrative records are governed by Rule 10.500 of the California Rules of Court. Responses identifying documents are ordinarily due within 10 days, or July 24, 2025. However, the rule permits the Court to extend that deadline by 14 days in certain circumstances. (See Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 10.500(e)(8).) Accordingly, the Court extends its deadline to provide an initial response to August 7, 2025. You will receive a response on or before that date.

Thank you,

Matt J. Malone
Chief Counsel and Public Information Officer
Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
mediainfo@contracosta.courts.ca.gov
925.608.2607

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

Courts Second Response:

From: Media Information <mediainfo@contracosta.courts.ca.gov>
Date: Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 2:12 PM
Subject: Response to Public Records Request
To: claytonwatch94517@gmail.com <claytonwatch94517@gmail.com>
CC: Media Information <mediainfo@contracosta.courts.ca.gov>

Good afternoon,

This email constitutes the Court’s response to your request for records under California Rule of Court 10.500. Specifically, you have requested “a copy of all the referral/complaint forms filed against the City of Clayton for the 2024-2025 Civil Grand Jury investigation and Report 2505, dated May 16, 2025, titled ‘Clayton: Small City, Big Concerns’ with the names of the persons filing the referrals/complaints redacted.”

The Court has no judicial administrative records responsive to this request that are not otherwise exempt. (See Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 10.500 (f)(5) [exempting from disclosure records protected under state or federal law]; see Cal. Penal Code sections 911, 915, 924, 929; McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1162, 1173 [confidentiality of grand jury proceedings and materials].) Redacting names does not impact the application of Rule 10.500(f)(5) where the materials themselves are confidential. Processes for any challenge to/appeal of the Court’s decision may be found in Rule 10.500(j) of the California Rules of Court.

Thank you for interest in the work of the Court.

Matt J. Malone
Chief Counsel and Public Information Officer
Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County
mediainfo@contracosta.courts.ca.gov
925.608.2607

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

To the Clayton Community,

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

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

Clayton Watch Report - June 26, 2025

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

Once again, Councilmember Holly Tillman stood alone in opposition.

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

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

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

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

This incident raises serious questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clayton deserves better,

Sincerely,

The Clayton Watch Team

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