Dear Mayor, Councilmembers, Staff, and Clayton Community,
As concerned residents and members of Clayton Watch, we are writing to you in response to the 2024–2025 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury Report, “Clayton: Small City, Big Concerns.”
While Civil Grand Juries serve a role in civic oversight, their reports are advisory. They offer opinions, not legal findings or evidentiary conclusions. That distinction is critical and often overlooked by the public.
Now to the heart of the matter: the Grand Jury missed the most important point.
As concerned residents and members of Clayton Watch, we are writing to you in response to the 2024–2025 Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury Report, “Clayton: Small City, Big Concerns.”
While Civil Grand Juries serve a role in civic oversight, their reports are advisory. They offer opinions, not legal findings or evidentiary conclusions. That distinction is critical and often overlooked by the public.
Now to the heart of the matter: the Grand Jury missed the most important point.
Accountability rests squarely with the City Manager and City Attorney, particularly regarding council agendas, adherence to the Brown Act, and day-to-day operations. And the City Council, under the leadership of Wolfe, Cloven, and Tillman, failed in its oversight role. Collectively, they let the city drift into dysfunction.
During one of the most unstable periods in Clayton’s history, City Managers Reina Schwartz and Bret Prebula, under legal guidance from City Attorney Mala Subramanian, failed to lead. The City Manager is the city’s CEO; the City Attorney, its legal compass. Instead of guiding the Council and enforcing best practices, they abdicated their responsibilities, resulting in confusion, declining services, and public mistrust.
- Ms. Schwartz, hired in 2020, often worked remotely from Sacramento, limiting her presence in the city. Services deteriorated, and her tenure ended with a resignation citing personal reasons.
- Mr. Prebula, her successor, ignored hiring protocols, failed to conduct background checks, didn’t post job openings publicly, and withheld crucial financial and construction project information. Residents were forced to file Public Records Act requests just to obtain basic answers—so much for transparency.
The Grand Jury’s depiction of staff turnover was misleading. The claim of “12 City Managers” includes several short-term retirees serving as interim placeholders. Since longtime City Manager Gary Napper retired in 2019, Clayton has had four permanent managers, not twelve. Exaggerations like these undermine the credibility of the report.
Likewise, several staff departures were far from routine:
• One resigned following a DUI incident.
• Another cited a hostile work environment under Mr. Prebula (currently under investigation.)
• Some resigned due to internal dysfunction or followed Prebula’s exit.
• Others were eliminated due to restructuring.
None of this vital context made it into the report. Why?
Even more troubling is what the Grand Jury failed to include. For over 18 months, while Wolfe, Tillman, and Cloven held the majority, the city’s checkbook went unreconciled—a material weakness flagged by auditors under Ms. Schwartz’s watch. Yet during this period, these councilmembers pushed a $400 annual parcel tax while fully aware of financial disarray. At the same time, $50,000 in stolen funds from the city’s checkbook went undetected for more than six months. None of this appeared in the report.
A closer read shows that many of Clayton’s challenges stemmed from poor executive hires—Schwartz and Prebula, who were publicly supported and defended by Wolfe, Tillman, and Cloven. They continue to stand by those choices, despite the long-term consequences.
The report also contained factual inaccuracies. Capital improvement costs were miscategorized as operating expenses, giving a distorted fiscal picture. That error has since been corrected, yet the Grand Jury didn’t acknowledge it.
We must also question the report’s tone and sources. Its narrative closely mirrors that of the Clayton Pioneer—a publication long criticized for bias—whose editor, Tamara Steiner, has made no secret of her views. The report references the Clayton Business and Community Association (CBCA) 18 times, raising legitimate concerns about influence and impartiality.
Notably, before the report’s release, Councilmember Tillman publicly suggested at a past city council meeting certain residents would soon be “eating crow.” How would she know? The origins of this complaint are no mystery.
And despite all the bluster, the Grand Jury found no serious misconduct, no civil rights violations, and no improper council overreach.
Ironically, the report validates what many of us already know: real reform began with the 2022 election. Since then, the Council majority—Trupiano, Diaz, and Wan—has worked to restore stability, integrity, and transparency to City Hall. A new City Manager and Assistant City Manager are in place. Every contract has been audited. Every expense is reviewed. Financial controls have been restored. This is the leadership residents demanded—and it’s finally being delivered.
As for the report’s suggestion that Clayton “explore alternative revenue sources”? That’s tone-deaf. Fiscal responsibility doesn’t mean inventing new taxes. And for the record, the city cannot raise taxes without voter approval. Responsible governance means managing money wisely, understanding the numbers, and eliminating waste—basic concepts neglected under prior leadership but now back in practice.
To be fair, the report did offer a few useful suggestions, like improving agenda access and encouraging public participation. Fortunately, these are already top priorities for the current Council. We agree with those limited points but emphasize: the root problems began in 2020, with Wolfe, Tillman, and Cloven, and their political games.
This is why Clayton Watch was formed.
Residents had seen enough. The city was deteriorating—financially, physically, and operationally. While services crumbled, political games dominated. From a mismanaged budget to overgrown landscapes and disappearing accountability, the signs were clear. Clayton Watch stepped forward to expose failures, cut through the spin, and fight for a better future.
We support this Council’s continued work to rebuild trust and move the city forward. We urge residents to view the Grand Jury report not as a roadmap, but as a reminder of how far we’ve come—and what we must never return to.
Sincerely,
The Clayton Watch Team
Political Action Committee
P.S. For those unfamiliar:
1. Anyone can file a Grand Jury complaint anonymously and without providing evidence.
2. To serve on the Grand Jury, you must be a U.S. citizen, at least 18 years old, and a Contra Costa County resident for one year.
3. No background in law, finance, or public service is required.
Keep that in mind before treating their recommendations as gospel.
To read the Grand Jury report, click on the following link. https://www.cc-courts.org/civil/docs/grandjury/2024-2025/2505/2505-SmallCityBigConcerns.pdf
