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

Embracing Change at City Hall: A Fresh Start in Clayton

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,

There has been a noticeable shift at City Hall since the introduction of the new staff. Over the past several months, the progress we've seen is not only evident but genuinely promising. Despite the continued complaints from a former council member, a current council member, the editor of The Pioneer, and a group of critics who only showed up to council meetings to voice their disdain, the results speak for themselves: the turnover at City Hall has led to a revitalized team that is truly committed to the job.

It's important to emphasize that the resignation of past city manager Bret Prebula and his team marked a pivotal turning point. Contrary to the criticisms of those still holding onto the past, this was, in hindsight, one of the best things to happen for Clayton. Prebula's decision to align himself politically with certain council members was a direct violation of the professional boundaries expected from a city manager. The worst misstep, however, was his resignation letter, which he co-authored with The Pioneer publisher Tamara Steiner. In it he essentially declared that Clayton would never recover from its staff turnover and rebuild effectively.

Funny enough, it seems that some of us in the community were once expected to "eat crow" are now witnessing the very people who supported Prebula eating their own words. The new staff we have in place respects the importance of remaining apolitical, which is essential for proper governance.

While the critics continue to harp on the past turnover, they fail to acknowledge the very real issues we had with previous city managers and a dysfunctional staff—particularly in the finance department. The reality is, we've made significant strides forward with the new team in place. The results are clear: our city is improving, and our staff is dedicated to the job at hand.

To those who continue to focus on past turnover, we say: look at the progress we’re making today. It's time to move forward. Continuing to dwell on past grievances is a waste of time and energy, especially when we're on the path to solving Clayton's longstanding issues. If you don’t want to be part of the solution, please, don't become part of the problem.

Thanks for reading,

Randy Waterhouse

Clayton Resident 

A Vision for Clayton's Future: Responsible Budgeting, Creative Solutions, and Community Prosperity

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 Mayor, City Council, and City Staff,

As a longtime Clayton resident, I’d like to share a few thoughts ahead of today’s budget workshop, which I regret I’m unable to attend. I appreciate the city’s effort in organizing this important meeting and providing residents with the opportunity to stay informed and engaged in the budgeting process.

While today’s focus is the overall city budget, it's also worth reflecting on how reserves have accumulated due to past budgeting decisions. For years, these reserves grew—not necessarily as a sign of financial strength, but because funds were not always used as originally intended. This contributed to a perception that residents were overtaxed and that the city was slow to address community needs.

Fortunately, I believe that period is behind us. Under the leadership of City Manager Kris Lofthus, Mayor Kim Trupiano, and the Council, we are seeing a more disciplined, transparent, and strategic approach to financial management. Recent restructuring and consolidation of city staff and resources reflect a renewed focus on accountability and professional governance. I commend this progress and feel optimistic about the direction we're heading.

As the city evaluates its budget and plans for the future, I support the responsible use of reserves for their intended purposes—such as budget stabilization, capital improvements, and vehicle replacement—while maintaining the prudent reserve level of 40%. Surplus funds should be put to work meeting real community needs—not left idle or as a cushion for inadequate planning.

In my view, raising taxes should not be the first solution, as has been suggested by a current and former council member. Instead, I encourage the city to continue seeking creative, sustainable strategies to support financial health. Some ideas worth considering include:
• Leasing or selling underutilized city-owned properties to generate recurring revenue.
• Installing solar energy systems and selling excess power back to the grid.
• Hosting additional city-led events to generate revenue and support local businesses, following the successful model of the CBCA (Clayton Business and Community Association).
• Actively pursuing state and federal grants for public projects.
• Introducing paid parking in high-demand areas to fund infrastructure improvements.
• Offering tax incentives to encourage local business growth.
• Exploring naming rights for public buildings as a form of private sponsorship.
• Partnering with neighboring cities to share services and reduce costs.

By adopting innovative and forward-thinking strategies, Clayton can diversify its revenue sources, reduce reliance on future tax increases, and invest more effectively in the needs of our residents.

If a tax increase—such as a sales tax or parcel tax—ever becomes truly necessary, it should only be pursued after all other viable options have been thoroughly explored and clearly communicated to the public. Our community deserves a government that is thoughtful, transparent, and fiscally responsible. With time on our side and a large reserve at our disposal, let's do the necessary work required to get our city in order.

In closing, I want to sincerely thank City Manager Lofthus, Mayor Kim Trupiano, and Council members Jeff Wan, Jim Diaz, and Rich Enea for their leadership. I believe the steps taken under their guidance have set Clayton on a more stable and promising path. With continued focus on smart budgeting and strong community engagement, I’m confident Clayton will continue to thrive.

Sincerely,

Gary Hood
Clayton Resident

Once Again - City Council Member Holly Tillman is Spreading Misinformation

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,

During the recent city council meeting on December 17th, there was a notable

“Ain’t that the truth”

incident involving council member Holly Tillman, who expressed her concerns in a rather aggressive manner. She alleged that Clayton Watch, a political action committee, was improperly using her personal email address to reach out to her and threatened them by saying this was illegal.

This assertion is far from accurate. Allow me to clarify. On December 13th, Clayton Watch received an email from Tamara Steiner of the Clayton Pioneer, in which she acknowledged that Peggy Spears, one of her writers, had made a significant error by misquoting the vote count from our previous city council election.

In the same email she asked the Clayton Watch Team to create and post a comment on the Clayton Watch website on her behalf, which was rejected by the Clayton Watch Team.

In this communication, Tamara included Holly Tillman (using Holly's personal email), Rich Enea, and Clayton Watch in the Cc field. When the Clayton Watch Team replied to Tamara’s email, they utilized the “Reply All” function, which clearly included the Cc information from Tamara’s original message. See image above.

Apparently, Tamara has been communicating with Councilmember Tillman via her personal email instead of Holly's city email address. Makes you wonder why? Is Tamara trying to hide her correspondence with Tillman from the public and the council? Besides, if Holly has any grievances about her personal email address being exposed, they should be directed towards her mouth piece, Tamara Steiner, at the Clayton Pioneer, not Clayton Watch.

Additionally, after reflecting on Holly’s claims and discussing them with other community members, a pertinent question arises: why is Tamara Steiner and the Clayton Pioneer communicating with council member Holly Tillman through her personal email? It may be worthwhile to investigate their (Tamara’s and Holly’s) previous communications to understand the context better.

Perhaps it is time for someone to submit a public records request to uncover the possible origins of past leaks from city hall that have appeared in the Clayton Pioneer that have cause much of the division in our small little town. The call for a Grand Jury investigation should be directed towards them (Tamara Steiner and Holly Tillman) since their the ones that seem to be undermining city staff and the community. https://claytonca.gov/fc/city-clerk/public-records-requests/public-records-request-form.pdf.

Honesty would be a welcome change. To read the complete article, click on the following link: https://www.claytonwatch.org/2024/12/clayton-watch-responds-to-tamara.html

Thanks for reading,

Gary Hood
Concerned Citizen

Clayton City Council Member "Holly Tillman" Throws a Tantrum and Attacks the Public

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,

Councilmember Tillman totally lost it when Councilmember Jeff Wan got nominated for vice mayor instead of her at the council's annual reorganization meeting on December 17th. She threw a fit and had the audacity to nominate herself. Then, she went on this ridiculous 6-minute rant about how it would be so unfair and divisive if she wasn’t picked for vice mayor, all while she was actually making things worse by attacking, threatening, and making false accusations about residents in the audience. This type of reckless behavior could expose the city to potential litigation.

It seems Holly thought it was a brilliant move to show off her "leadership skills" on camera by trying to shut down anyone who disagrees with her or her so-called progressive agenda. What a joke!

She clearly doesn’t understand that the city council picks the mayor and vice mayor through a majority vote, not just because of #JustHolly. Choosing the mayor and vice mayor is just like any other council decision. You need at least three votes to approve or deny any action, not some dictatorship—#JustHolly. After four years on the council, Holly should have figured this out by now.

Plus, Clayton has never had a council member self-nominate for mayor or vice mayor. You’d think it would be embarrassing for Holly to even try that, but she seems completely blinded by her desperate need for power and the ridiculous belief that she deserves the position. The #JustHolly campaign has clearly taken over any sense of rationality. It’s pretty pathetic.

Every December, the city council, by majority vote, chooses their leadership team for mayor and vice mayor. They pick colleagues who have actually earned their respect, who are team players, and who have shown they can lead the city for the next year. Respect isn’t something you can just demand, it’s earned.

Even if the mayor and vice mayor's roles are mostly ceremonial, there are still some crucial responsibilities and qualities tied to the job.

- The mayor, or the vice mayor if the mayor's not around, runs the city council meetings, sets agendas, and facilitates discussions among council members in an effort to reach consensus on important issues. You should really check out videos #5 and #6 on this site to find out why Holly didn’t get the vice mayor nod. https://www.claytonwatch.org/p/holly-tillman-in-action-her-words-not.html

- The mayor, or the vice mayor when the mayor's busy, prioritizes new policies and important community issues that will be placed on the council agenda for action. Seriously, watch video #2 on this site to see why Holly was passed over for vice mayor. https://www.claytonwatch.org/p/holly-tillman-in-action-her-words-not.html

- The mayor, or the vice mayor if the mayor's not there, has to keep the council meetings on track so they can wrap up each agenda item. Don’t forget to check out video #5 on this site to see why Holly wasn’t nominated for vice mayor. https://www.claytonwatch.org/p/holly-tillman-in-action-her-words-not.html

- The mayor, or the vice mayor in the mayor's absence, handles the preparation and approval of the city's yearly budget. You should watch video #8 on this site to understand why Holly didn’t get the vice mayor position. https://www.claytonwatch.org/p/holly-tillman-in-action-her-words-not.html

- The mayor, or the vice mayor when the mayor's not available, is basically the city's cheerleader at the Mayor's Conference, community events, and other regional gatherings. You really need to see video #1 on this site to get why Holly was not nominated for vice mayor. https://www.claytonwatch.org/p/holly-tillman-in-action-her-words-not.html

In short, just watch all 8 videos on this site to figure out why the council didn’t pick Councilmember Tillman for vice mayor. Honestly, the council made the right call, "Did The Right Thing", by nominating and approving Kim Trupiano for Mayor (5/0 vote) and Jeff Wan for Vice Mayor (4/1 vote). I’m looking forward to another fantastic year with our city's new leadership team.

Bill Walcutt
Past Mayor and Council Member

Clayton Citizen Challenges Misinformation in the Local Newspaper

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,

Is the Clayton Pioneer exhibiting bias? Is Tamara Steiner attempting to create controversy where it may not exist?

In her most recent print edition, reporter Peggy Spear inaccurately asserted that Holly Tillman was merely 10 votes away from taking the top spot. However, the county election office has a different perspective, revealing that Rich Enea actually led by 156 votes. Why would Tamara allow Peggy to disseminate such a clear inaccuracy? If her goal is to provoke a response from Holly’s supporters regarding the mayoral rotation, this sensationalism certainly aligns with her intentions.

Historically, Tamara has published numerous articles that criticize candidates she does not support. In 2018, she publicly endorsed her favored candidates through her publication, and in 2020, she found multiple letters to the editor that disparaged those she opposed, which she subsequently published.

Peggy Spear's reporting raises concerns about her competence; she prematurely announced the election results on election night, even though thousands of ballots were still being counted. In 2022, Peggy authored a negative article about Jeff Wan and Kim Trupiano, who ultimately won, while citing one of the candidates she supported who did not succeed.

Journalists are tasked with presenting facts while maintaining a clear distinction between their personal beliefs and their professional responsibilities. Tamara longs for a return to previous leadership, where her allies held positions of power and her preferred CBCA received financial advantages funded by taxpayers. It is evident that following her and her allies' loss of influence within the city council, she has adopted a negative stance towards the city, attempting to undermine it at every opportunity in hopes of regaining the authority she once enjoyed.

She endorses Bill Jordan's controversial apartment complex in the downtown area and appears to dismiss residents as misinformed for wanting to maintain the town's character rather than transforming it into a city akin to San Francisco. Furthermore, she continues to assert that the Olivia on Marsh Creek project is intended for 55+ senior housing, which is misleading.

In my opinion, the emergence of Clayton Watch is timely, given the evident biases and subpar reporting from Tamara and her ineffective team, including Peggy Spear.

We encourage you to submit a letter to the editor to hold Tamara Steiner and Peggy Spear responsible for their journalistic standards and to also demand a retraction.

Thank you for your attention,

From a Concerned Citizen

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