Maria Shulman Delivers a Heart-Felt Concession to the Clayton Community

Facing a competitive field and a tight race at every turn, Maria Shulman has officially conceded her campaign for a position on the Clayton City Council. She was short by 52 votes in her attempt to secure one of the three available seats.

The 2024 election will be notable, as voter turnout from the Clayton community was highest among all cities in Contra Costa County, with a participation rate of 83.95% of the 8,638 registered voters.

Clayton Watch extends its gratitude to Maria for her commitment to serving our community. Based on our conversations with her, we are confident that she will pursue another opportunity in the future.

Additionally, Clayton Watch would like to express appreciation to all the volunteers who dedicated countless hours to writing articles, editing videos, and preparing content for publication. 

The Clayton Watch Team will continue to monitor future council meetings and report on important community events. If you would like to join the team, contact us.

Maria's full written concession is included below.
________________________________________

From Maria Shulman

Congratulations to Rich Enea, Holly Tillman, and Jim Diaz. I sincerely hope the Clayton City Council's tenor will be cooperative and beneficial for all residents.

I want to express my sincerest gratitude to everyone who supported my candidacy for Clayton City Council. I am humbled and thankful for my campaign's support, guidance, volunteers, and contributions. The community's belief in me is fantastic, and although I didn’t make it on council this time, rest assured that I will continue to be present in the community through volunteer opportunities as Chair of the Planning Commission, your neighbor, and your friend. 

The residents of Clayton and surrounding areas, family, and friends from afar are exceptional heroes, never ceasing on encouragement and advice. I could not have asked for a better group of people for support. I would have never made it this far without all of you!

With gratitude and humility,

Maria Shulman

Honesty Would Be A Welcome Change For Our Elected Representatives

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

Dear Clayton Community,

Wouldn’t it be great if they would sit down and answer questions face to face. They say they represent the people of their District but never send out questionnaires asking for opinions. It is convenient to not have opinion polls when they vote to appease their party leaders or Campaign Donors.

If you go to The “CALIFORNIA DSA statewide organization of the Democratic Socialists of America” it reveals some interesting facts thru their support of candidates. (https://www.californiadsa.org/news/2024-primary-voter-guide-cadsa)

The D.S.A. supports Mark DeSaulnier – Congressional District 10. “He often bucks the majority of Democrats to vote with the left on contentious issues, has cosponsored nearly a full slate of progressive initiatives…”

Question for Mark D:

How do you plan to bring this country together politically when your updates expose your hatred for the Republican Party and all the people registered Republican.

The D.S.A. supports Kamala Harris under their Instagram section “Two Socialists Takes, The Harris/Walz campaign.” It states… “it will be difficult- maybe impossible-for left forces to move under a MAGA regime…”is a necessary condition to achieve any transitional socialist goals.” https://www.californiadsa.org/

The D.S.A. supports Proposition 5, along with Tim Grayson. The D.S.A writes… “Passing Prop 5 will make it easier for California cities and counties to invest in local housing and infrastructure by lowering the voting requirements to raise property taxes and by publicly funding new housing.”

Questions for Tim Grayson:

1. How does increasing property tax lower housing costs and rents?
2. Why did you support Scott Wieners S.B.9 (ending single-family-home-only zoning, April 9, 2024 just ruled unconstitutional?) People in Contra Costa County, which you represent, overwhelmingly support the space Single Family Home zoning provides. It appears you did not represent your constituents in favor of appeasing Scott Wiener.
3. Why should we elect you to the California Senate since your votes completely spent a $37 Billion surplus and created a $79 Billion deficit (Numbers approximate depending on source)? This means you voted to overspend approximately $116 Billion too much!
4. You stated publically the original $.50 /gallon additional gas tax would go for our infrastructure and roads. The bill dedicated the money to our roads and could not be taken away unless there was an emergency. Does that explain why you overspent to create a financial emergency?
5. C.A.R.B. (California Air Resources Board) has stated that they will raise gas prices $.50/gallon next year and every year after to aid in clean air efforts. Californian’s already pay more than $1.00/gallon than the national average for gas, and even more for diesel. Almost everything is shipped into California and transported by engines using fossil fuel which has raised the cost of food significantly in California, not to mention everything else we buy.
6. Our Govenor - Gavin Newsome - just had The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act Proposition removed from the ballot so voters will not have the opportunity to vote on it. The Wall Street Journal headlines read “Democracy Dies in California.” This is truly an assault on Democracy for a Politician to have “a people sponsored and qualified initiative removed from the ballot.”

HOW DOES TIM GRAYSON PLAN ON PROTECTING CALIFORNIANS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S ASSAULT ON OUR QUALITY OF LIFE BY TAKING MORE AND MORE OF OUR INCOME?

Unfortunately, there are many questions, and no answers from our Representatives!

Only higher prices for everything!

Thanks for reading,

A Concerned Clayton Resident

The League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley are a Disgrace

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

Dear Clayton Community;

The League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley should be embarrassed. The candidates form was a complete fiasco and a joke. The moderator had no clue what he was doing and wasted time worrying about who would answer the question first. 

The two questions that really teed me off were the one about the gay parade, and the other one about how the city council could help with the poor economic conditions affecting all of us. 

Both questions were inappropriate and should’ve never been asked. In addition, listening to Holly Tillman boast about all her endorsements was sickening. Let’s not forget this is a non-partisan election for a town of 11,000 people. Why in the hell would she need to get all these endorsements, it makes no sense.

Thanks allowing me to post this article.

Best regards,

A Clayton Resident that was in Attendance 

Important News From a Community Member - Don't Miss the Candidate Forum

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

Clayton Community,

Just a Reminder!

Don't miss the Candidate Forum on Wednesday, October 2nd at 7 p.m. The Clayton Community Library Foundation, in collaboration with the League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley, is excited to present a Candidate Forum for the Clayton City Council.

This event will take place at Hoyer Hall from 7:00 to 8:00 p.m.

While the specific questions remain a mystery, I hope they include some audience inquiries.

If you’re planning to attend, it might be worthwhile to engage Holly Tillman with some questions regarding her previous remarks about Clayton being a racist city, her issue of police profiling, and her worries about residents feeling unsafe enough to stay indoors at night. 

Additionally, it would be interesting to inquire why she hasn’t cast a vote on the city budget for the past two years, and what her reasoning is behind supporting a $400 annual parcel tax despite the city having over $7 million in reserves. Earlier this year, she referred to the City of Clayton as "hoarders" while advocating for a sales tax increase.

As for the three other candidates, they to need to be ask hard questions too - such as how they plan to heal the community divide, and what’s their position on high-density housing, landscape maintenance, and higher taxes?

If you can’t make it in person, you can still catch the Forum on Zoom through this link. https://claytonca.gov/community-calendar/clayton-library-foundation-and-league-of-women-voters-of-diablo-valley-candidate-forum-for-clayton-city-council/ 

Hope to see you there,

A Senior Resident of Clayton - That's Paying Attention

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

We appreciate you for reading this article.

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

A Worrying and Intentional Action? You Be the Judge

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

Dear Clayton Community,

Can Holly Tillman collaborate with individuals who hold differing political views? Do her supporters prioritize anything beyond their political alignment?

The ongoing election involves three available seats on the city council. Recently, a movement called #onlyHolly has emerged among her supporters, aiming to persuade the majority of Clayton's voters to back only Holly Tillman. Essentially, they are advocating for the election of just one candidate—her.

The individuals behind the #onlyHolly campaign have previously demonstrated a pattern of antagonism towards other City Council members and appear intent on altering the fundamental character of Clayton. How can we expect a functional city council if, in a race for three positions, we only elect one person?

It’s evident that her supporters are not interested in collaboration, but rather in aligning exclusively with those who share their political beliefs. This raises concerns about Holly and her supporters seeking a one-person rule in Clayton.

Over the past four years, Holly has shown little willingness to engage with her colleagues unless they are in complete agreement with her. Her initial move four years ago was to bypass a sitting vice mayor, breaking established protocol. More recently, she has publicly stated her refusal to participate in certain committees due to disagreements with her peers.

What would a government led by only Holly look like? Why does she permit her supporters to advocate for this approach, which clearly does not serve the best interests of Clayton?

An informed voter should consider all candidates and aim to fill every seat. However, it seems that she and her supporters are more focused on advancing her political ambitions than on the welfare of our city.

It is essential for us as a community to reflect on the reasons that brought us together in the first place. Personally, my motivation was not rooted in progressive ideologies or a so-called woke agenda.

We should cherish the spirit of Clayton as a quaint rural community nestled near the breathtaking Mount Diablo, where we can cultivate friendships, appreciate our parks and trails, and put aside our political disagreements. 

Signed,

Concerned Citizen of Clayton
Resident for over 21+ years

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Attention Holly Tillman - Answer Two Questions

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

Attention Holly Tillman,

In regards to your run for 2024 City Council I would like you to answer two questions for the community of Clayton.

1. During your 4 years serving as City Council please list 8 positive contributions that you made to the City of Clayton.

2. Earlier this year I attended a City Council meeting where you told me you were a Progressive.
When I Googled Progressive I found several meanings. I would like you to tell the Community of Clayton which meaning is your belief? I’m asking this sincerely so that we might try and understand your positions.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Long time Clayton Resident
Debbie DeSousa

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Council Agenda a Proposed “Security Renovations” for the 3rd Floor of City Hall

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

By Glenn Miller

to Jeff, Kim, jimd, hollyt, pcloven, claytonwatch

To all – I saw that on the Council Agenda a proposed “security renovations” for the 3rd floor of City Hall which include “which include: glass doors, wood framing, drywall, service counter/cabinet, window modifications, flooring, patching and painting, cable railing modifications, railing, sprinkler adjustments, signage, alarm modifications, and electrical rerouting.”

As probably the one person that still lives in the City that worked on the HISTORICAL RENOVATION of the De ’Martini Winery Structure to turn it into City Hall I want to caution that ANY renovation that would alter both the interior and/or the exterior of the building would jeopardize the Historical Certification and standing of the building and quite possibly be subject to penalties should certain historical groups object.

I get it that furniture and other fixtures can and quite possibly should be replaced and certain security features be upgraded but this could be handled by a furniture consultant or seller and a security firm. Hiring an Architect especially one with no historical background is, in my opinion a waste of time and money. Also I would think in terms of security, alarm and fire sprinkler adjustments a good contractor could help with this at possibly no cost but as part of their construction costs and services. And, I would also think that within the talents of the Maintenance Supervisor on staff and the Police Chief you would have the expertise to do this part of the work in house.

Or, maybe you might wish to wait and hire a New City Manager that comes with sort of project expertise. Because, as I read this report and see its’ original genesis and background, I have to wonder if this was just another example of the previous City Manger’s incompetence and influences by some on the on the current and past Councils.

One final thought, as I have visited City Hall on several occasions to go over the Historical Renovations with past City Manger’s and even the current Interim City Manager I did note the rundown condition and just plain uncleanliness conditions of the Public Areas. They were quite frankly filthy and showed a lack of regular maintenance care, and respect. I must say I found this insulting to those of us (including City Officials) that worked so hard in creating the fine Historical Adaptive Reuse project that we achieved.

Just to be clear, I agree the space could use some cleaning, possibly new surface treatment, new fixtures etc. but this is not the way to handle it. Please reconsider this idea and take a different more frugal and respectful approach.

Respectfully

Glenn D. Miller PE and City of Clayton Project and Construction Manager for the De Martíni City Hall Project.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Trouble in Dodge

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2024 7:23:50 AM

To: stephaniecb@claytonca.gov <stephaniecb@claytonca.gov>; jeff.wan@claytonca.gov <jeff.wan@claytonca.gov>; kimt@claytonca.gov <kimt@claytonca.gov>; jdiaz@claytonca.gov <jdiaz@claytonca.gov>; malathy.subramanian@bbklaw.com <malathy.subramanian@bbklaw.com>; peterc@claytonca.gov <peterc@claytonca.gov>; apolitzer@claytonca.gov <apolitzer@claytonca.gov>; hollyt@claytonca.gov <hollyt@claytonca.gov>

Subject: City Council Meeting "Abruptly Halted: Last Tuesday Night

The City Council meeting took a troubling turn last Tuesday night (7/16/24) when one of the public speakers began to make serious allegations against 3 city council members, naming them by name. He ended by labeling these council members and calling them "homophobic".

A second speaker addressed the council and made many more accusations and because he couldn't name names as the sergeant at arms would have stopped him, he began to pause and look directly at council members or persons in the audience, even leveling a veiled threat! You can learn much more by going to Clayton Watch.

The behavior exhibited not only undermines the integrity of our meetings but also casts a dark shadow on the respectful dialogue the city council strives to maintain.

The second public speaker's address to the council went off course with statements meant to harass council members as well as other members of the public who were present in the room, as he took pause and gave glaring stares at each of the individuals. He couldn't name names or the sergeant at arms would have called him on it to require him to stop.

As this second citizen left the podium, he walked the long way around to specifically harass one of the other members of the public, inciting a violent response by bending over to get right in the face of this Clayton citizen. I was sitting right behind him and witnessed this whole thing. You can view these speakers by starting at 0:56:00:00, and 1:10:34:00 at the following link: claytonca.gov/government/city-council/city-council-meeting-07-16-24/.

Hoyer Hall

This speaker who was intentionally inciting the public was removed from the council meeting chambers, and reportedly has also had to be removed from other locations around the area.

Thanks to the city council calling a 10 minute recess to deal with this outburst and the swift response of law enforcement in addressing this situation, order was restored and the city council meeting resumed after this person was removed.

I hope our city council can take decisive action to prevent similar incidents from happening. Our community deserves a safe and dignified forum to discuss critical issues, free from disparagement and intimidation through name calling or labeling.

Such conduct is totally unacceptable and must not be tolerated at any setting, and particularly within the halls of our council where civility and respect should be the norm.

It is essential to reassess our security arrangements to ensure the safety and well-being of all attendees.

Sincerely,

Concerned Clayton Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Experts, or no experts? Which is it?

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

Dear Community Members:

Some of you supported the Olivia (high-density) project and said we should believe the experts on the parking overflow issue as gospel truth. But now, as we review our new city fee schedule, you don’t believe the experts because it’s inconvenient for the non-profit group you support.

As a taxpayer, I’m not interested in subsidizing the CBCA events. There’s a thing called inflation, and the city’s fee schedule needs to be adjusted so that they recover their costs. It’s pretty simple. I don’t think the clamor the CBCA is making is about the money, it’s about politics and power.

For those of you who own properties in Clayton, and want to pay more in property taxes, I say go ahead and float the idea out there for a parcel tax to your fellow neighbors. Let’s see what their reaction is.

If their reaction is positive, head down to City Hall pick up the paperwork start collecting signatures, and place it on the next ballot. Let’s see what happens.

Here’s another idea . . . why don’t you donate directly to the non-profit of your choice and help them out during these inflationary times and leave the hard-working citizens of Clayton out of it?

For those of you who want everything for free; free driveway permit fees, free inspection fees, free business license fees, free facility rental fees, free street closures, and more - you’re looking at this whole issue with blinders on.

Cheers,

Concerned Clayton Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

City Managers View Point - Not a Legal Opinion - What Laws Are You Referring To?

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

Dear Interim City Manager Adam Politzer,

Thank you for taking the time to address this important matter in your busy schedule. Your dedication and commitment to resolving this issue are truly appreciated.

I want to warmly welcome you as a valuable addition to our team at City Hall. Your experience is highly valued, and I am confident that your presence will have a positive impact. I particularly resonated with your statement during the recent city council meeting, where you emphasized the importance of city managers remaining in the background.

In my view, the previous two city managers lacked the necessary management skills, which unfortunately reflected poorly on the staff and city. However, I am genuinely excited to have you on board, as I believe your years of knowledge and expertise will greatly assist us in overcoming the challenges we currently face.

Regarding your email response, I want to let you know that I respect your view. However, I must reiterate that according to the Brown Act, the League of California Cities/Your Role as a Local Elected Official - reopening public comment is not solely within the Mayor's discretion, and is not as straightforward as you mention in your email. It requires a collective decision and cannot be done unilaterally. Any Council Member may move to suspend the rules if necessary to accomplish a matter that would otherwise violate the rules. The motion requires a second, and a majority vote is required for passage. No such motion was made or a vote taken.

My primary concern lies in the recurrence of this issue, as it resurfaced during our most recent city council gathering. Reopening public comment improperly raises significant concerns regarding fairness and equal access, as it may mislead certain residents, both in person and online, into thinking they have already been allowed to voice their opinions, with some of them leaving the meeting after they speak. Arbitrarily reopening public comment at a later time could benefit one side and undermine public trust and accountability.

It's a little challenging to summarize, but during the Clayton City Council meeting on April 16, 2024, Mayor Diaz and the council did not seek guidance or input from the city attorney. Surprisingly, she willingly interrupted the discussion when public comment had been closed by the Mayor.

In my view, the City Attorney acts as a parliamentary advisor for the City, providing advice and clarifying situations based on Roberts Rules of Order, and California Open Meeting Laws. While the Mayor has the final say on parliamentary procedure, the Council can question and challenge those decisions.

Many cities establish rules of procedure to ensure the effective and fair conduct of City Council meetings, which helps promote public confidence. If our city does not have such documented procedures, I would strongly recommend creating them.

For reference, I would like to know what law(s) you are referring to that gives the Mayor discretionary authority to reopen public comment - as it would be helpful to know this in the future.

I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts on this whenever you have a moment.

Best regards,

Gary Hood

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

It's Been 20 Days Since My Last Communication with the City Attorneys

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

Hello Mala and Joanna,

I trust this message finds you in good health. It has been about 20 days since my last communication to your office. From that, I gather that you may not be inclined to address the concerns I raised in my letter dated April 18, 2024. Furthermore, I have been made aware you failed to inform the city council about my original letter and my concerns.

Unfortunately, due to prior commitments, I couldn't make it to the city council meeting on Tuesday, May 7, 2024. However, I did watch the meeting on the city website the next morning. I was disappointed to see that you didn't bring up the topic I wanted to discuss during the meeting.

If it suits you better, I am open to resolving this matter privately. In such an event, I kindly ask for a written response from you as a professional gesture. If a mistake was made, please acknowledge and correct it. If the situation is complex, I would appreciate a clear explanation regarding why you feel the public comment should have been reopened.

However, if you choose to ignore my request, I'll have no choice but to escalate the matter to the city council and make it public.

Although I would like your firm to keep representing Clayton, I cannot endorse your current approach. Disregarding issues and dismissing them does not instill the necessary confidence in me or the public that you are truly looking out for the Clayton community.

I eagerly await your timely response to address this issue so I can focus on other important matters.

Best regards,

Gary Hood

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

City of Clayton. . . it’s Time to Get Back on Track and Hire the Right City Manager

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

Dear Clayton Community:

I've read all of the rhetoric, professional commentary, retrospective analyses, and online criticisms surrounding the issues of our past city managers.

In summary, based on my analysis, it appears that our previous city manager Bret Prebula rode into town with his own agenda and poor management skills. As a side note, the city manager before him, Reina Schwartz, worked remotely from Sacramento most of the time, which proved ineffective in providing the real leadership needed by city staff.

My findings are as follows: We don’t need a Grand Jury to tell us what is going on at City Hall. The recent accusations from councilmember Holly Tillman and tabloid newspaper owner Tamara Steiner wrongly place blame on council members Wan, Diaz, and Trupiano for supposed meddling at city hall clearly stems from Tillman and Steiner's dissatisfaction with the past election's outcome rather than any actual wrongdoing by Wan, Diaz, and Trupiano.

Staff turnover in any organization is caused by various factors. Employees are leveraging the current labor market to jump to new opportunities, but what's making them leave in the first place? None of us will ever know for sure why people are leaving, but in many instances, it is caused by the lack of leadership. My research tells us good employees quit for many reasons.

The saying “people don't quit companies; they quit their bosses” is as true as the sky is blue.

Here are a few reasons why employees quit their jobs:

1) Rude behavior - Studies have shown that everyday indignities hurt productivity and result in good employees quitting. Rudeness, assigning blame, back-biting, playing favorites, and retaliations are among the reasons that aggravate employee turnover.

2) Employee misalignment - Organizations should never hire employees (internal or external) unless they are qualified for the job and in sync with the culture and goals of the organization. Managers should not try to force a fit when there is none.

3) Coaching and feedback are lacking - Effective managers know how to help employees improve their performance and consistently give coaching and feedback to all employees. Ineffective managers put off giving feedback to employees even though they instinctively know that giving and getting honest feedback is essential for growth and building successful teams and organizations.

4) Bad Management and Leadership - When the manager ignores difficult team members and the problems they cause, strong performers often get frustrated. They also may dread coming to work for fear of having to deal with their toxic coworkers. That leads to unhappiness on the job and is a big reason why good people leave.

5) Underpaid Relative to the Market - While many employees in recent years have prioritized company culture and flexibility over pay, those who feel undercompensated and mismanaged compared to the market are more likely to seek opportunities elsewhere.

Here is the real question we should all be asking ourselves. . . Who’s driving the bus? Who is in control of the team? THE CITY MANGER should be, not the City Council.

Holly and Tamara are you following along, are you listening? Please stop with the divisive rhetoric and misinformation.

It appears our past City Clerk, Janet Calderon got it right when she attributed the "lack of leadership" and a “toxic work environment” from the past two city managers as the sole reason for her departure.

When Bret came to town he wasn't in sync with the culture of Clayton. He brought his own agenda. When his agenda was rejected by most of the city council and the citizens, he packed his bags and left.

End of story.

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Clayton - Non-Profit - True Colors Shine Through

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

Clayton Community:

In my previous post on Next Door, I explained the history behind the growing division in our town, which I believe is important background for this discussion. I would suggest you read it as a prerequisite to this post. It’s long but informative, but a must-read.

https://nextdoor.com/p/WQ-2dhXcrNN4?utm_source=share&extras=NTM2NTcwNzQ%3D&utm_campaign=1713622198329

Recently at a city council meeting, Vice Mayor Trupiano shared concerning news. She has worked diligently to secure sponsorships for city-sponsored special events and has had great success this year. However, some sponsors told her that members of the Clayton Business and Community Association (CBCA) contacted them, questioned their support of city events, and pressured them to withdraw sponsorship.

This bullying and intimidation tactic is unacceptable and has fueled division in our town. I've included a video of Vice Mayor Trupiano reporting this troubling information at the city council meeting on April 16, 2024. https://youtu.be/E9i4Io0OJzQ?si=A-qohvlXoK-EgZwh

This divisive behavior from the CBCA must cease immediately for the good of our community.

Concerned Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Attorney Meddling and Intervention at April 16, 2024 City Council Meeting

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

Dear Clayton City Attorney Malathy Subramanian and Joanna Gin:

I am writing to express my respectful disagreement with Joanna Gin’s intervention at the April 16, 2024, Clayton City Council meeting. While I apologize for speaking out of turn from the audience without being recognized, I felt Joanna Gin’s guidance to reopen public comment on agenda item 8a was legally questionable and could set an unhealthy precedent.

Mayor Diaz exercised his discretion to have the members of Community Financial Sustainability (Hank Stratford, Howard Kaplan, and applicant Frank Gavidia) speak last during the public comment period under Item 8a, as he had indicated they would before opening the floor to comments.

Under the Brown Act, public comment must be allowed on each agenda item before action is taken. However, once public comment is closed, there is no provision to reopen it on the same item. Doing so raises issues of fairness and equal access, as some residents may have left already believing they had their chance to speak.

My concern is less with this one instance, but rather the precedent it could set. If a mayor can arbitrarily reopen comment later to allow one side to speak again, it damages public trust and accountability. I would urge adherence to the Brown Act, League of Cities Guidelines, and California's Open Meeting Laws which guarantee and protect equal public participation.

If Hank Stratford, Howard Kaplan, and the applicant Frank Gavidia had been listed under a separate agenda item like 8.b., your intervention would have been justified.

While city attorneys have leeway, adherence to open government laws and fair proceedings is paramount. I understand your role is to advise, but in this case, your guidance seemed to contravene core public access principles.

In conclusion, I am optimistic that one of you will address this critical issue at our next council meeting, scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 7, 2024, so that the council and the public have a better understanding of open meeting law and policies.

Above all, I thank you for your service and commitment to our community, despite this disagreement.

Please accept my apology again for my outburst.

Sincerely,

Gary Hood

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Why is Clayton so Divided? Is it About Power and Control? You Decide (Social Media Post from a Resident)

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

Clayton Community:

Throughout this post, I will share some factual information that a few community members may prefer I didn't. However, it's important for the community to know the full history behind why I believe our town has become so divided. I will stick to the details I know to be factual and avoid speculation. The common denominator on division is obvious, but I’ll let you decide for yourself.

⁃ Over the past 25 years, the Clayton City Council has had 4 to 5 members that were also part of the Clayton Business and Community Association (CBCA), formally known as CBPA. This, in my opinion, created a potential conflict of interest that raises ethical concerns, even though it may not be illegal.

⁃ Historically, there were several steps involved in getting on the Clayton City Council. 1) Candidates would typically join CBCA, 2) They would get appointed to the Planning Commission, and 3) After being endorsed by the CBCA, they could run unopposed for a City Council seat backed by Tamara and Bob Steiner of the Clayton Pioneer newspaper, and the CBCA. Important note: Though a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, the CBCA's political involvement may have violated IRS regulations, but that’s a discussion for another day.

⁃ Tamera Steiner, her husband Bob, Julie Pierce, and her ex-husband Steve have been longstanding, active members of the CBCA; Bob and Steve both previously served as president. While the organization does important work for the community, its close ties to political figures like Julie Pierce, our 28-year council member and 7-time mayor, have raised concerns about undue influence in city affairs. This makes a strong case for exploring term limits in the future.

⁃ Previously the CBCA requested the City Manager, Planning Commission Chair, and Police Chief to provide monthly reports at CBCA meetings. However, in early 2021, the City ended this practice, as it had become apparent that requiring these reports was dividing the community and was inappropriate.

⁃ Recently, tensions have been rising between city leadership and local newspaper owner Tamara Steiner. For reasons that remain unclear, three of the five city council members refuse to speak with Tamara or cooperate with her publication. Tamara appears increasingly frustrated, perhaps because she is losing some influence and control over the city affairs that her newspaper once held.

⁃ Ever since Jeff Wan first ran for political office, Tamara has appeared to oppose him. Since Jeff was an outsider who thought independently, Tamara selectively edited his responses to her 2018 candidate questionnaire, likely trying to sabotage his campaign. Readers should review Jeff's original response and draw their own conclusions.

⁃ Since Jeff Wan's election to the City Council, The Pioneer newspaper has made repeated attempts to undermine his credibility. Just a reminder, Jeff is an outsider and not a member of the CBCA.

⁃ The town's divisiveness and animosity between factions stem from the 2020 mayoral appointment when Vice Mayor Wan was bypassed for Mayor as Councilmembers C.W. Wolfe, Holly Tillman, and Peter Cloven seized control. Disregarding the City Council Handbook's guidance, Tillman nominated Wolfe while Wan was still speaking. Wan was again passed over the next year when Cloven became Mayor.

⁃ This past year the CBCA has lost control and influence over the Planning Commission, as three out of the five current commissioners are not CBCA members.

⁃ One of the Planning Commissioners supported by Council member Holly Tillman in 2021 worked as a registered lobbyist in California and had two prior arrests, according to the commissioner's website. However, neither Tillman nor the commissioner disclosed this background during the initial interview and appointment process. When the commissioner's term expired and she reapplied, Tillman voted against reappointment, apparently because the commissioner's background had been revealed publicly by a community member.

⁃ After the City Council’s extensive community feedback and consultation with residents, CBCA members, and an outside expert, a new Master Fee Schedule was implemented in 2023 to better align rates with the city’s actual operating and recovery costs. While most speakers at the public meetings were CBCA members, their input - though passionate - was often unconstructive, with some using profanity. It was apparent that the CBCA members and their leadership were upset because they wanted to continue to use our downtown for free.

⁃ The city's fee schedule had gone unreviewed for years, according to city staff who admitted they could not find records of when fees were last examined. This lack of oversight raises concerns and questions about past city councils' financial priorities over the past 25 years, as they may have focused more on supporting the CBCA than responsibly managing city finances. Outdated fees that failed to keep pace with expenses could have indirectly subsidized the CBCA's events for decades at the expense of Clayton citizens.

⁃ Over the last few years, tensions have risen between the city government and the local non-profit CBCA group due to disputes over proposed changes to the city's Master Fee Schedule along with other changes at City Hall.

⁃ Last year, the CBCA's annual donation to the city's Concerts in the Grove summer event plummeted from $5,000 to a mere $500, a 90% funding reduction. According to reports, the CBCA made this drastic cut out of spite after the city instituted a new master fee schedule.

⁃ The city’s Fourth of July parade planning committee, co-chaired by two volunteers, sought to choose a new master of ceremonies for the prestigious role. However, City Manager Bret Prebula unilaterally overruled the committee's decision and reinstated C.W. Wolf, the CBCA President, a controversial choice. Right before this appointment, the CBCA had donated $1,000 to the city for the parade when they had not contributed a nickel for four (4) years prior. This sequence of events led to allegations of a "pay to play" arrangement and quid pro quo between Bret Prebula and the CBCA, resulting in C.W. Wolf's selection. The committee co-chairs and volunteers were deeply upset by the perceived interference and lack of consultation from the City Manager. The situation demonstrated growing distrust and poor communication between Bret Prebula, his staff, and the community.

⁃ The City of Clayton Special Events Committee was formed to organize major city events like Concerts in the Grove, Fourth of July Parade, and more, however, according to a city staff member, Bret opposed the committee and instead wanted to give the Clayton Business and Community Association (CBCA) more control over these events because he said his staff was overworked. Three out of five council members pushed back and voted to keep the city’s special events under the control of the city.

⁃ At a recent meeting of the CBCA, Vice Mayor Kim Trupiano faced criticism from CBCA board members C.W. Wolfe, Ed Hartley, Keith Hayden, and Pat Middendorf when she asked for a donation to support the city's special events. According to meeting attendees, Trupiano was verbally attacked for requesting assistance for these events. It was apparent that the CBCA board, along with some long-standing members remained frustrated about paying the city's standard rental fees to use city-owned streets and venues for CBCA events.

In summary, The Clayton Pioneer newspaper, reporter Tamara Steiner, the CBCA organization, and City Council members Holly Tillman and Peter Cloven appear to be fueling tensions in Clayton. The city and residents should communicate to the CBCA that despite having several members on the Council, it does not control City Hall or Council decisions.

For the good of our small city, the CBCA must end its divisive tactics, which seem driven by a power struggle rather than any real issue. This unproductive conflict needs to cease.

Sincerely,

Concerned CItizen

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

More on Clayton Chaos - By Tamara Steiner, Clayton Pioneer

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

Released by Tamara Steiner and the Clayon Pioneer.

Tamara Steiner

We're not sure how she received this email information, but can only assume it came from one of the council members. Here are a few of the excerpts that Tamara made public from Brett Prebula’s last communication to Jeff Wan.

(According to Tamara, Bret was the 8th city manager through City Hall’s revolving door since Wan was elected in 2018. He was city manager for 8 months)

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

To Jeff,

Councilmember Wan- It seems fitting and unfortunate that I am ending my time in Clayton how it began, addressing your overreach . . . . . .

This sad reality only continues to underscore the email I sent City Council last week alerting you all that the ongoing behavior by City Council that I warned you of in November, continues and thus continues to impact our great staff . . . . . .

As I told Mr. Hood . . . I am out of energy fighting the ongoing games and overreach . . . I am copying City Council so everyone has the same data and in hopes that my continued messages that these behaviors by City Council will do nothing but continue to make high quality staff leave, negatively impact the staff remaining, and ultimately not benefit the Clayton community. . .

Best, Bret Prebula

Sent from my iPad

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Historical Facts - Clayton City Managers

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

Dear Clayton Community:

Below are the historical facts that everyone is missing.

• Gary Napper retired in 2019. He had been our city manager for a very long time. 

• The 16-year incumbent who was defeated in the election of 2018 is the one who started this nonsense that staff would leave if Jeff Wan was elected. Suddenly we get a city manager who reached retirement age and it’s somehow Jeff Wan’s fault. 

• Interim Joe Sbranti was hired. He was retired from Pitsburg and therefore could NOT be hired as permanent and was also limited as to how long he could work for the city. 

• Ikani Taumeepeu was then hired as a permanent city manager led by 28-year incumbent Julie Pierce. If you want to know why he didn’t last, you should ask Julie Pierce. All we know is he was allowed to resign and it cost the city $100k. But somehow that is Jeff Wan’s fault. 

• The city then hired Interim Fran Robustelli who was eligible to be hired as a permanent and was by many accounts a good city manager. But 28-year incumbent Julie Pierce who was on her way out had to have her hands in everything and pushed to hire a permanent city manager before the new council was sworn in in late 2020. 

• Fran was passed over and Reina Schwartz was hired. Again Tamara and her friends like Mr. Kiloran say that’s Jeff’s fault too. 

• Reina Schwartz resigned right before the election in 2022 to care for a family member. You can see on her LinkedIn profile she was out of work for about a year. Again somehow that is Jeff’s fault. 

• The city then hired Ron Bernal, who was retired and therefore limited as to how long he could work and could not be a permanent hire. Bernal is also a very good city manager and it was too bad we couldn’t keep him. 

• And then we get to Mr. Bret Prebula. The mystery to me is that the people screaming the most for investigations all seem to have the same political stripes. That’s our history. How is it all Jeff’s fault? 

The people who hate Jeff have hated him since the day he stepped up to run. And the most un-American thing I can think of is for one political group to call for the arrest trial and conviction of their opponents.

Sincerely,

Concerned Citizen

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Dejavu: Clayton City Staff Is Trying To Push Through Another Tax Increase

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

Dear Clayton Community:

In March of 2022 it was a $200-$400 parcel tax, this time it is a 1/2-1 cent sales tax increase. (The staff must have not read Mayor Peter Cloven's $30,000 community survey in 2022, where the community said “NO’ to new taxes of any kind.) Hello, Council-members Holly Tillman and Peter Cloven.

APPROVE THE TAX OR BUST: The city manager placed an urgent item on the March 5th city council agenda for a 1/2 cent to 1 cent increase in Clayton's sales tax to be placed on the November ballot or have the city move to austerity measures to balance the budget. He presented his 5-year budget forecast that shows a budget deficit of: (-$240,000) in Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 (-$561,181) in FY 2025 (-$572,311) in FY 2026 (-$796,023) in FY 2027 and (-$875,870) in FY 2028.

CRISIS, URGENCY? Because it takes 4 affirmative votes to place a tax measure on the ballot the city manager was asking 4 councilmembers for an on-the-spot commitment to move forward with the tax measure or commit to extreme cuts in city services. He presented this as an “urgent” decision by the council because of a tight timeline to get a tax measure on the November 2024 ballot.
* Create a crisis (huge budget deficit),
* Create urgency (must be done now).
* Red flags? Sound familiar?

WAS THE COUNCIL BLINDSIDED? I read the City Manager's staff report and it was not clear he was going to ask the council to make a decision that night to move forward with a ballot measure. It appears this was a reckless, last-ditch effort to fast-track a tax increase measure. It doesn't look like he even reviewed his forecast with the Council's Budget/Audit Committee before putting it on the agenda.

Asking taxpayers to cough up more tax money is a serious matter (especially in this economy with the cost of everything increasing) and it should never be a spontaneous on-the-spot decision.

In my opinion, he put the council in an awkward position. Moreover, the city manager has been pushing for 3 tax increases for over 8 months.
1) A sales tax increase,
2) A $100-150 increase in the Landscape Maintenance District parcel tax, and
3) An increase in the real estate transfer tax.

This makes you wonder why he waited until it became an urgent matter to get it on the November 2024 ballot. He could have put together his 5 years forecast 2 months ago with his proposed tax measure to give all council members time to review the numbers and make an informed decision-but he didn't.

NO NEED TO PANIC: The good news is there is no need to panic because the city has a General Fund reserve of $7.7 million that can be used to help balance the budget until a well-thought-out solution can be reached. The reason this reserve is so large is that the city has added to it in years when revenue exceeds expenses, creating a net surplus at the end of the year.

Here is an example of historical General Fund performance: FY 2015 +$389,892 surplus, FY 2016 +$204,902 surplus, FY 2017 +$299,222 surplus, FY 2018 (-$250,810) deficit, FY 2019 +$93,674 surplus, FY 2020 +$404,425 surplus, FY 2021 (-$55,589) deficit. As you can see, the numbers jump all over the board. One could argue that in years when the city had a budget surplus we were over-taxed, so it seems reasonable, to slow down, take a "pause" and use some of the reserve money until we have a better understanding of city finances moving forward.

Therefore, we don't need to jump head-first into putting a sales tax increase on the November 2024 ballot. We should thank Councilmember Wan for pushing for a "pause", and not moving forward with a decision at the council meeting. In my opinion, this was the right decision given the uncertainty of Clayton's budget structure.

***CONGRATULATIONS, YOU HAVE REACHED THE HALFWAY POINT. TAKE A BREAK, GRAB SOME POPCORN AND A SODA, AND CONTINUE READING***

IS CLAYTON'S BUDGET DEFICIT REAL? It does appear the city has a structural budget deficit, but there are many solutions to be considered by the council to solve this problem. A tax increase is only one solution and it could be a sale tax increase, a new parcel tax, an increase in the real estate transfer tax, or a reduction in expenses.

At this point, we don't know what the real deficit is moving forward. There are so many different budget deficit numbers being floated by city staff in the last 3 years it makes your head spin. Besides, a forecast is not an exact science and as Councilmember Wan pointed out, the outcome depends on the methodology used and the assumptions made to complete the forecast.

When Councilmember Wan asked for clarification at the last city council meeting, the city manager got defensive and told him it would add no value to the process. In other words, it was on a Needs to Know Basis and You Don't Need to Know.

THE CITY HAS CREDIBILITY ISSUES TO OVERCOME: The city has a credibility gap, caused in part by The Clayton Pioneer, Peter Cloven, Holly Tillman, and C.W. Wolfe. As you may recall, the Pioneer published a ten-year budget forecast in their February 18, 2022 issue put together by former City Manager Reina Schwartz and supported by former Mayor Cloven, Vice Mayor Tillman, and Councilmember Wolff, because they wanted to push through a new $200-$400 parcel tax.

This false and misleading forecast showed a budget deficit of -$672,366 in FY 2023 and increasing to -$2,179,296 in FY 2031. It was an obvious attempt to create a crisis and garner support for their tax measure--sound familiar?

The gang was silent on the fact this forecast included $500,000 in the city manager's wish list of expenses. Peter Cloven, Holly Tillman, and CW Wolfe even voted to spend $30,000 of taxpayer money to see if Clayton voters were buying their budget crisis story.

THE PATH FORWARD: This first step is to get a handle on the real budget numbers before we try to solve the problem. The city has approved a Citizen Financial Review Committee (however, it is not officially formed yet) that will be reviewing all the expenses, line-by-line, as well as all the revenue sources.

Please let them do their job and complete their review before we jump to a solution. We have to know the real number before we try to solve the problem. As I said before, there is no urgency because we can use the reserves to handle any shortfall.

THINGS TO CONSIDER ABOUT A SALES TAX INCREASE: A sales tax increase is just one potential solution to be considered in the future, but keep in mind it will impact your budget. It is not just a tax on your bill at restaurants and Safeway, it will be applied on all your internet purchases and car purchases. Note: Tax on auto sales are "return to source taxes", it is where you live, not where you purchase the vehicle. For example, if you purchase a $50,000 vehicle it will add $500 to your bill.

BOTTOM LINE: Let the process work, slow down, take a "pause" and use some of the city's General Fund Reserve money (now at $7.7 million) until we have a better understanding of the city's budget issues and then move forward with a well thought out comprehensive solution. Keep in mind, it will cost taxpayers $60,000 or more to place a tax measure on the ballot and the city will need considerable voter buy-in for it to pass-especially in this economy.

Sincerely,

Bill Walcutt

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Clayton Pioneer’s Smear Campaign - Business Owners React!

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

There's No Limit On

What a Community Can Do. . . URGENT!

The Clayton Pioneer’s smear campaign against our beloved town has gone too far. As business owners and proud residents of Clayton, we must take a stand before Tamara Steiner hurts all our businesses.

It appears that Tamara Steiner has made it their mission to drag our community through the mud with fabricated stories and malicious lies that will damage our businesses.

Our take on this is that she has been doing this for several years and the residents of Clayton have complained to her over and over to no avail. She needs to start reporting the news and stop trying to make the news.

Please join me and write to Tamara and tell her to knock it off!

Sincerely,

Mark and Laurie Johnstone
Clayton Business Owner

* The attached document details the harmful rhetoric being spread without evidence or justification from the Clayton Pioneer. This misinformation appears to originate from Council Person Holly Tillman and her small group of supporters.

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

Editorial: High staff turnover a sign of Clayton’s decline

By The Pioneer

Clayton City Hall.

CLAYTON, CA (Mar. 11, 2024) — Clayton City Hall is in chaos. It’s time for the Contra Costa Grand Jury to step in for a close look at City Council governance and the behavior of some individual councilmembers.

As recently as 10 years ago, Clayton enjoyed regionwide admiration and respect for its stable government. It had a city manager with an 18-year tenure, low administrative turnover, a balanced budget with hefty reserves and a council that generally ruled by consensus. In short, paradise.

Around 2016, all that changed. A tradition of reasonably civil disagreements over growth and state-mandated, high-density housing devolved into ugly anonymous hate mail and personal attacks on city staff and councilmembers viciously fought out on social media. In short, hell.

Clayton has gone from a “shining city” to rivaling Antioch for comic relief.

A small, vocal and unprincipled anti-growth/anti-change/anti-establishment army calling themselves Save Clayton and/or Clayton Watch declared war on city staff and councilmembers who opted for compliance with state law. The group put their muscle behind Jeff Wan, a current councilmember and last year’s mayor, who openly advocated a “Just Say No” policy to state-mandated, high-density housing and who took a negative view of the city’s history of governing by consensus.

By the time Wan was elected to the council in 2018, the attacks and harassment of other councilmembers and city staff had increased to the point that both the city’s development director and 18-year city manager quit, starting a revolving door of senior staffers.

In the last five years, the city has gone through eight city managers, seven finance managers and five community development directors. Most recently, highly qualified city manager Bret Prebula quit after less than a year on the job and was immediately snapped up by Suisun City.

The public watched as the council majority of Wan, Jim Diaz and, to a lesser extent, Kim Trupiano repeatedly insulted and undermined Prebula during council meetings. More than once, Wan and Diaz bypassed the city manager and issued orders directly to staff in violation of the city’s municipal code.

Fed up with the chaos, Councilmember Holly Tillman has been calling every month since October for an independent investigation of the constant turnover, current council/staff interactions, claims of harassment and charges of Brown Act violations. And every time, she is summarily dismissed.

It’s clear that either an independent investigation and/or a Grand Jury inquiry is in order.

No healthy city runs through 20 people for three senior positions in less than six years.

TAGS: CITY OF CLAYTON, CLAYTON, CLAYTON CITY COUNCIL

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Olivia on Marsh Creek - We Were Bamboozled!

Shared Correspondence from the Community: We value the diverse perspectives of our readers and aim to encourage meaningful conversations. Occasionally, we may share excerpts from correspondence received from our followers or gathered from social media to promote civil discussions. While we may not always agree with the opinions shared, we believe in facilitating a platform for respectful debates. Thank you for contributing to the ongoing conversation in the comments section. Remember to keep your comments respectful and concise.

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

Dear Clayton Community:

Attention Seniors 55 and over, do you like shuffleboard, bocce, checkers, bingo and playing cards? Well the Olivia on Marsh Creek in Clayton surely isn’t for you, because it has none of these amenities, and is not a 55+ senior housing project.

Let me explain before you go off on me.

Many of us have been mislead by the developer, his consultants, and the city staff from the beginning. This development is not a senior housing project! It’s plain and simple, Resolution #07-2020 only calls for the Olivia development to have seven, (Again Only Seven), affordable, age restricted (55+), housing units, the remaining 74 units have no age or income restriction.

I ask those who continue to spread false information to please reconsider and acknowledge the truth - we were all misled by the developer, consultants, city staff and elected officials, including Mayor Julie Pierce and Council-members Tuija Catalano, and Carl Wolfe.

In order to be a 55+ senior housing project the developer would have had to meet several federal and state guidelines as follows:

1. The Unruh Civil Rights Act contains provisions regulating the establishment of specialized housing designed to meet the physical and/or social needs of senior citizens.

2. The Rumford Act (California Fair Housing and Employment Act) has additional requirements that the developer would have needed to comply with in order for the development to be considered senior housing.

3. The Fair Housing Act specifically exempts three types of housing for older persons from liability for familial status discrimination.

4. Such exempt housing facilities or communities can lawfully refuse to sell or rent dwellings to families with minor children only if they qualify for the exemption.

In order to qualify for the "housing for older persons" exemption, a facility or community must comply with all (ALL) the requirements of the exemption.

The Housing for Older Persons exemptions apply to the following housing:

1. Provided under any state or federal program that the Secretary of HUD has determined to be specifically designed and operated to assist elderly persons (as defined in the state or federal program);

2. Intended for, and solely occupied by persons 62 years of age or older; or

3. Intended and operated for occupancy by persons 55 years of age or older.

How Does a Facility Qualify for the “55 or Older” Exemption? In order to qualify for the "55 or older" housing exemption, a facility or community must satisfy each of the following requirements:

* At least 80 percent of the units must have at least one occupant who is 55 years of age or older; and

* The facility or community must publish and adhere to policies and procedures that demonstrate the intent to operate as "55 or older" housing; and

* The facility or community must comply with HUD's regulatory requirements for age verification of residents.

(The above is just a cursory outline of what the developer must have demonstrated in order for the project to be considered a 55+ senior housing project.)

As we have discovered, the developer never attempted to comply with any of these requirements and elected to pursue density bonus law and request concessions from the City of Clayton in order to build 81 units, with only 7 of the units being affordable housing units. As a reminder, just in case you forgot, the remaining 74 units have no age or income restriction.

If you’ve made it this far in my post, I think it’s fair to say that this is a complicated matter. I would encourage everyone to research the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Rumford Act (California Fair Housing and Employment Act) to gain more in-depth knowledge on this subject.

There's no shame in admitting we were tricked - but let's not continue the false narrative. Olivia on Marsh Creek is not what we were promised. It is not a 55+ Senior Housing Project.

Important update: The City Council has formed an ad hoc committee to discuss implementing a parking permit program in affected neighborhoods and historic downtown. Stay informed about upcoming committee meetings by contacting Claytonwatch94517@gmail.com - one of our volunteers will gladly answer any questions and welcome your participation.

Best regards,

Gary Hood

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate