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

Contra Costa County Officials - Complaint - Olivia on Marsh Creek

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 Contra Costa County Officials:

We write to you today regarding an urgent matter that requires your immediate attention and action.

At issue, is a residential development project named "Olivia on Marsh Creek" at 6170 High Street in Clayton, CA. This project has sparked considerable controversy and complaints from residents during the initial grading phase because of unprofessional construction standards and practices.

We implore you to review the permits granted to the developer, William Jordan, especially his claimed status as an owner-builder.

After a careful review of the facts, it appears Mr. Jordan does not qualify for an owner-builder exemption and has falsified information on his application. We urge you to revoke his permits, issue a stop work order on the project, and impose fines on Mr. Jordan for these infractions.

The health and well-being of our community are at stake, so we hope you will act swiftly to remedy this situation.

According to the California Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) and the Contractors State License Board (CSLB), these agencies clearly define owner-builder requirements, which Mr. Jordan does not meet.

· The property is not his primary residence, nor has he lived there for 12 months prior, which are prerequisites to filing as an owner-builder.

· Additionally, he plans to construct more than two buildings, exceeding the legal limit for owner-builders.

According to the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB), anyone who violates the law is subject to disciplinary action by CSLB, including civil penalty assessments of up to $5,000 per violation, an order of correction that requires payment of permit fees, and any assessed penalties imposed by the local building department, and suspension or revocation of the license.

Mr. Jordan seems to have misrepresented his qualifications on the application, which constitutes a serious violation. Your oversight on this matter is greatly needed and appreciated. Please take corrective action immediately and hold Mr. Jordan accountable.

We kindly request you send us written verification once you have addressed this disturbing situation. The citizens of Clayton urge you to uphold the law and protect the integrity of our hometown.

We await your swift intervention on this urgent issue. Should we not receive a timely reply, we will need to escalate this issue publicly through social media and local news outlets.

Sincerely,

Clayton Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Code Enforcement Online Complaint

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.
_______________________________

Code Enforcement Online Complaint Form 01-25-2024

Contra Costa County Dept. of Conservation & Development
Code Enforcement Division
Phone: (925) 655-2710
Toll Free Phone: (877) 646-8314

Below is the form used to file code enforcement complaints within the County's jurisdiction. Complete the appropriate information and click the SUBMIT button on the bottom of the form.

COMPLAINANT INFORMATION
Fill in all fields with an asterisk. Anonymous complaints cannot be processed. Your contact information will be kept confidential.

Your contact information is required so the code enforcement officer (inspector) may contact you if more information is needed or to let you know if the reported property violation is not within the County's jurisdiction.

Complainant First Name:

REDACTED

Complainant Last Name:

REDACTED

Phone Number with area code:

REDACTED

E-Mail:

REDACTED

ALLEGED VIOLATION / NATURE OF COMPLAINT INFORMATION

Type of Violation (Check one or more boxes)

Building, Grading, Other

Address of Violation

6450 Marsh Creek Road

City

CLAYTON

DESCRIBE IN DETAIL THE NATURE OF VIOLATION/COMPLAINT

January 25, 2024

Dear Contra Costa County Officials:

We write to you today regarding an urgent matter that requires your immediate attention and action.

At issue, is a residential development project named "Olivia on Marsh Creek" in Clayton, CA. This project has sparked considerable controversy and complaints from residents during the initial grading phase because of unprofessional construction standards and practices.

We implore you to review the permits granted to the developer, William Jordan, especially his claimed status as an owner-builder.

After a careful review of the facts, it appears Mr. Jordan does not qualify for an owner-builder exemption and has misrepresented information on his application. We urge you to revoke his permits, issue a stop work order on the project, and impose fines on Mr. Jordan for these infractions.

According to the California Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) and the Contractors State License Board (CSLB), these agencies clearly define owner-builder requirements, which Mr. Jordan does not meet.

• The property is not his primary residence, nor has he lived there for 12 months prior, which are prerequisites to filing as an owner-builder.
• Additionally, he plans to construct more than two buildings, exceeding the legal limit for owner-builders.

According to the California Contractors State License Board (CSLB), anyone who violates the law is subject to disciplinary action by CSLB, including civil penalty assessments of up to $5,000 per violation, an order of correction that requires payment of permit fees, and any assessed penalties imposed by the local building department, and suspension or revocation of the license.

Mr. Jordan seems to have misrepresented his qualifications on the application, which constitutes a serious violation. Your oversight on this matter is greatly needed and appreciated. Please take corrective action immediately and hold Mr. Jordan accountable.

We kindly request you send us, along with the City of Clayton, written verification once you have addressed this disturbing situation. The citizens of Clayton urge you to uphold the law.

The health and well-being of our community are at stake, so we await your swift intervention on this urgent issue.

Sincerely,

REDACTED
(Plus many other concerned residents.)

Sincerely,

Stanahan Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

City Manager Meeting on Olivia on Marsh Creek Oversight

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 Council,

COMPLAINT # 1

It is very disturbing that our City Manager, Bret Prebula, is trying to blame Gary and me, and other Clayton residents for all the questions, concerns, and complaints he is receiving regarding construction occurring on the Olivia site.

Apparently, he sent an email to the entire city council (and possibly others) accusing us of harassing him and city staff over Olivia. It appears he believes asking questions is harassment. I view these accusations very seriously and I am quite surprised he didn’t reach out to us before complaining to the entire city council about these baseless claims. I also find it hard to believe, as a professional city manager, that he thought this approach was a good idea as I have never seen this backward approach work.

Moreover, a city manager would have to be pretty naive not to know that whenever construction would start at Olivia, it would generate a lot of questions, concerns, and community outrage.

This is a housing project the community did not support, a project the community believes the city did not listen to or address their concerns, a project the community believes the city put the interest of the developer above the concerns of the residents, a project that would have an enormous impact on Historic Downtown and our little town, a project residents were so opposed to because of the huge impact it would have on their quality of life, that they filed a lawsuit against the city. Some community members believe the city is in the pocket of a less-than-credible developer.

Based on the above, in my professional opinion, most, if not all, of the questions, concerns, and complaints about Olivia's construction could have been avoided if Bret had been proactive instead of reactive. He created his own mess by his inaction on this project. He should have gotten out in front of this issue by developing and implementing a community outreach program before construction started on Olivia. (Without going into a lot of detail, an effective plan would include, community outreach meetings with impacted residents, enforcement of the COAs, an effective communications plan, and oversight, etc., etc.).

I have to assume his staff advised him of the start date, and instead of getting out in front of this issue, Bret has been chasing it. This is eating up a lot of his time and staff time. He is still not forthcoming with information, and he has handed off communications to Kennedy and Associates. According to their contract, this is not one of their responsibilities.

If you know what you are doing is not working, and you are getting overwhelmed, a good crisis manager would pull resources together, develop a plan to address the situation, and change direction, and not blame others for the outrage. In my opinion, these are all huge missteps on his part.

I also find it hard to believe he does not understand the public's anger when he continually tells them Olivia is an approved project that has been fully litigated when they complain about the lack of oversight. It is never a good idea to put people on the defensive to avoid criticism and start the blame game, especially when you are a public official and are on the public's payroll.

Bottom line, instead of developing an effective community outreach plan ahead of Olivia's construction, he let construction start without any community notification or outreach and then seemed to be surprised/outraged when people had questions, concerns, and complaints. Apparently, he doesn’t understand the value of effective communication.

I would like to put this issue to bed. Therefore, I would ask the city council to encourage Bret to do a reassessment of his harassment accusations and publicly retract these statements, and apologize to Gary and me.

COMPLAINT # 2

On to another serious incident. I attended a meeting on Wednesday, October 18th, at City Hall where Gary Hood, Bret Prebula, Larry Theis, Andrew Kennedy from Kennedy and Associates, were in attendance. Gary arranged this meeting with Bret so we could work out some of the oversight issues we were observing on Olivia.

When Brett agreed to meet on the 18th, I was encouraged by the fact that Bret said he we would have his team (city engineer and a representative from Kennedy and Associates) at the meeting. I have always found it beneficial to have all the players involved at the table.

To me, this was going to be a meeting to discuss Olivia's oversight and get some important information about COA enforcement that we could feed back to the community. As we entered the meeting room my expectations faded. Bret and his staff seemed to be very agitated and unfriendly.

The meeting began with a lecture from Bret saying what we were doing was wrong and causing an unnecessary burden on his staff. He went on to tell us Olivia was an approved project that had been fully litigated. In other words, shut up and move on. I am not sure why he thought this approach would work because it never does—and it didn’t work this time.

Gary pushed back telling Bret we did not come to the meeting to receive a lecture from him, and I advised Bret we were aware Olivia was an approved project and we were at the construction and oversight stage (which I thought was the purpose of the meeting). At this point, Bret gave us a stern warning that if we did not behave, he would end the meeting.

We tried many times to ask Andrew Kennedy questions about their level of oversight and violations of the COA we have observed, (dust/particulate control, lack of perimeter fencing, hydroseeding, and rodent control, which was generating all the questions and community outrage) but Andrew Kennedy was rude and condescending. He proceeded to tell us the developer has complied with all the COA’s and then bragged about his qualifications. I showed him a picture of the dust being generated by a bulldozer on the site, but he got annoyed and did not want to look at it.

Larry was disengaged and busy looking at his iPad until he started scolding us in a loud voice for bringing up gaps in past COA violations. The meeting went downhill from there and Bret did nothing to control his staff or try to de-escalate the situation. Then they loudly called an end to the meeting and Bret shouted “Get out”.

It is apparent to me that Bret and his staff came to the meeting angry, and confrontational and were very agitated that we would have the audacity to question their management of Olivia and point out gaps in COA enforcement. This meeting would have been a good opportunity for Bret to bring us together on Olivia, but he either doesn’t know how or did not want to reach a resolution. Clayton has always welcomed community input, concerns,and questions from citizens. This is usually how a small town works and always has in Clayton.

I am shocked by the unprofessional behavior displayed by Bret and his staff at this meeting and his unprofessional handling of Olivia. I have facilitated and attended many community meetings for over 30 years as a former councilmember and mayor right here in Clayton, and Public Affairs Manager for a Fortune 100 company, with public officials, elected officials, and angry community members. In my experience, Bret’s childish and abusive approach does not work. Normally citizens look to city officials for answers and leadership.

Based on these two incidents, it appears to me Bret could use some additional training. I would suggest the council urge him to receive additional training in the following areas:

1. Anger Management
2. Community Relations
3. Community Outreach Meetings with an Angry Crowd
4. De-escalation Techniques and Skills
5. How to Manage a Controversial Development

(All of which are available through the University of Phoenix Online College or Diablo Valley College,)

Please be guided accordingly and take appropriate action.

Sincerely,

Bill Walcutt

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Acquaintances of Peter Cloven, Holly Tillman, and C.W. Wolfe - Beware

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 Neighbors, Friends, and Acquaintances of Peter Cloven, Holly Tillman, and C.W. Wolfe,

Please tell them their actions have consequences. Those of us that watched the city council meeting on Tuesday, December 5th with great disappointment. What should have been a simple rotation for the position of Mayor once again devolved into the bitter verbal attacks that have become all too common this past year from Council Members Peter Cloven and Holly Tillman.

Instead of professionally conducting the vote for our next mayor, Mr. Cloven opted to give an inflammatory speech detailing why he refused to support Mr. Wan in the past. He then blamed this on Mr. Diaz, claiming he was threatened into not supporting Mr. Wan.

These dubious allegations strain credulity. I have the screenshots of Mr. Cloven's own text message explanation for overlooking Vice Mayor Wan after the 2020 election. Nowhere does he mention being threatened by Mr. Diaz. He cites only campaign rhetoric and lack of support. Yet now he changes his story and levels accusations. Which version should I believe, Mr. Cloven? The truth is plain - your actions were motivated by pettiness and vindictiveness, not threats.

This is not Mr. Cloven's first instance of vindictive politicking. He orchestrated similar maneuvers against Commissioner Frank Gavidia on the Planning Commission. And his supporter Council Member Tillman has now fallen victim to Mr. Cloven's thirst for power, as his machinations prevented her from becoming Mayor as would have occurred under the original rotation.

The community lost out on what would have been our first African-American mayor. Again, Mr. Cloven's actions paved the way for two white men to become mayor ahead of the Asian-American candidate. I cannot ignore the racial undertones here.

Ms. Tillman is now paying the price for Mr. Cloven's naked ambition. It appears he used her to get elected but in reality does not care about supporting diversity in leadership roles.

Mr. Cloven, your divisive politicking has gone on long enough. For the good of Clayton, please resign from City Council immediately so we can move forward with more unity. Let your replacement be someone committed to serving all citizens, not sowing division.

I urge Ms. Tillman to distance herself from Mr. Cloven's toxic example.

Signed,

A 50 Year Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Clayton Non-Profit Group Causes Disruption in City Council and Community

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 actions of a non-profit group in Clayton have caused significant issues for both the city council and its citizens, almost resulting in the loss of the right to provide public comments during meetings. This group, known as the Clayton Business and Community Association (CBCA), has been a source of controversy due to the behavior of its members, including their use of profanity and their tendency to dominate city council meetings.

The CBCA was established in 1984 as a community organization that aims to serve the Clayton community. Despite claiming independence from the City of Clayton, California, their past actions and influence suggest otherwise.

One concerning aspect is the control that CBCA members have exerted over the city council for the past 39 years. It is evident that a conflict of interest exists, as four out of five council members have been active participants in the CBCA. Surprisingly, during this time, the city council has never thoroughly examined the Master Agreement Fee Agreement with the CBCA or the City's Fee Schedule, raising questions about their motives.

A former city manager, who served for over 20 years, summarized the CBCA's behavior as self-serving and focused solely on their own interests. They have been known to resort to intimidation tactics to silence anyone who dares to question them.

Furthermore, the CBCA has violated the rules and guidelines governing 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations by endorsing and promoting candidates for City Council and Planning Commission positions. This blatant disregard for regulations further highlights their lack of integrity.

One particular incident that exemplifies their conflict of interest occurred when the CBCA requested that the mayor, chairperson of the planning commission, and the chief of police report directly to them during their monthly meetings. Fortunately, this practice was swiftly halted after a concerned citizen raised the issue in 2020.

It is clear that the actions of the CBCA have caused significant disruption within the city council and the Clayton community. Their behavior raises serious concerns about their true intentions and their commitment to serving the best interests of the community as a whole.

The actions of CBCA members have had a significant impact on all residents of Clayton. Two years ago, Peter Cloven and Holly Tillman, both CBCA members, disregarded tradition by bypassing Vice Mayor Jeff Wan for the position of Mayor. This decision, orchestrated behind closed doors by council members Wolfe, Cloven, and Tillman, occurred not once, but twice. The community was left divided, with many attributing the blame to Cloven and Tillman for their divisive politics.

Last year, two CBCA-endorsed candidates, Bridget Billeter and Ed Miller, were vetted by Clayton Watch, a community watchdog group. Despite high hopes for their election, both candidates were deemed unacceptable by Clayton Watch. Bridget Billeter was found to have major character flaws, including misusing her title and resources to harass Clayton Valley Charter High School, with Holly Tillman's knowledge and support. Ed Miller, on the other hand, was considered unreliable and made inappropriate comments, such as misogynistic remarks towards Councilperson Jeff Wan's wife. During the recent election, volunteers distributing flyers throughout the community faced harassment and surveillance.

Both Billeter and Miller faced defeat, with Miller finishing in last place. Jeff Wan garnered the highest number of votes, while Kim Trupiano secured the second spot.

Following the establishment of the new council, Jeff Wan was elected as Mayor by a 3/2 vote, with Jim Diaz chosen as Vice Mayor by the same margin.

The council wasted no time in getting to work. Their first order of business was to review the city's fee schedule. Upon examination of all city vendors, the CBCA's special use fee agreement was identified as outdated and subsequently terminated after more than a decade without adjustments.

Subsequently, CBCA members began to express their discontent. It became evident from their reactions that they were displeased with the outcome and sought to utilize Clayton downtown for their events without charge.

During city council meetings, CBCA members regularly voiced their opinions during public comments, with some participating via Zoom. For over ten months, both the council and the public endured negative and sarcastic remarks from this group, with no signs of the attacks ceasing.

Holly Tillman and Peter Cloven demonstrated their allegiance to the CBCA by consistently raising concerns and making comments about the CBCA during council meetings. Furthermore, during council staff reports, both Tillman and Cloven consistently brought up the CBCA, raising questions about a potential conflict of interest.

During the October city council meeting, the new fee schedule was approved by a vote. The approval came from Jim Diaz, Kim Trupiano, and Jeff Wan, while Cloven and Tillman dissented.

At the October 3 or 17 City Council Meeting, a former CBCA Board Member utilized Zoom during the public comment period for the city events committee to launch a profanity-laden, misogynistic tirade against Council Member Kim Trupiano.

Throughout the October meeting, Howard Geller, a longstanding CBCA member and former council person, verbally criticized Kim Trupiano. His frustration stemmed from the city's assumption of control over the concerts in the grove and the desire for more transparent financial reporting.

Over the course of the year, it has become commonplace for CBCA members to mock the way Council Members speak or the appearance of Mayor Wan. While it is understandable that CBCA is displeased with the new Master Fee Schedule, it is essential for everyone to contribute their fair share.

The conflict of interest and the pressure exerted by the CBCA board on City Council Members are difficult to overlook. However, this does not justify the use of Zoom by CBCA members to make offensive remarks towards Council Members who are striving to implement necessary changes to ensure the city is adequately compensated for police services, maintenance, and property usage.

During the meeting on November 7th, the use of Zoom for public comments was called into question. While instances of racist attacks in other cities were cited as a reason to discontinue using Zoom, the offensive language used by CBCA members was also a topic of extensive discussion.

CBCA President Carl Wolfe and the board appear indifferent to the use of profanity. They even defend it. The privilege of using Zoom was nearly revoked for Clayton due to a small faction within CBCA that prioritizes politics over charity. Carl Wolfe must take more decisive action to safeguard his organization and the public from such behavior. It is imperative that Carl Wolfe clearly states that all CBCA members must exhibit proper conduct when in the presence of the public.

It is evident that the individuals behind the negative and derogatory comments are all affiliated with the CBCA, including its members and board members. As a 501 c3 non-profit organization, the CBCA should refrain from engaging in political matters. Their behavior indicates an inability to gracefully accept defeat and relinquish control of the city.

Regrettably, the Clayton Pioneer, a biased newspaper owned by Tamera Steiner and her husband Bob, is also associated with the CBCA. This newspaper consistently fails to provide accurate information about the organization.

Sincerely,

Clayton Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Holly Tillman - The Most Polarizing Figure Clayton Has Witnessed

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 Council and Staff,

I have some serious concerns that need to be addressed. Let's start with Councilwoman Tillman. She promised transparency but has not been transparent at all.

She lied when responding to Mayor Wan's Town Hall recap and her behavior with Tamara Steiner. Many of us witnessed the interaction and she definitely fed Tamara questions to ask.

Her behavior on the dais, accusing other council members of making decisions before meetings, needs to be stopped.

Why hasn't the attorney stepped in? Also, her continued classification of Clayton as racist and unwelcoming is terrible.

Why does she constantly belittle the place she lives?

Her agenda seems to be making a name for herself at the expense of the citizens of Clayton.

She also needs to stop hijacking the council meetings. They are running too long, and no one wants to hear her go on about herself or what her husband does.

Sincerely,

Clayton Resident

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Unwanted Advice for Carl Wolfe and Peter Cloven - Sent From the Community

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,

Here is some unwanted advice for Carl Wolfe and Peter Cloven: If you really believed in bringing the community together, promoting council harmony, inclusiveness, diversity, transparency, following council guidelines and procedures, and "Doing the Right Thing", then you would have selected Jeff Wan as Mayor and Carl Wolfe as Vice Mayor. This would have brought both sides and the community together and is something you said you wanted to do. For the good of Clayton, please reconsider your actions. We don't need more divisiveness.

Disgraceful, divisive, and maybe racist. Is recall an option? Or; civil suit action?

This is not the Clayton I have lived in for the past 30

Signed,

Unhappy Citizen

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate

Letter to City Council - Confirming Certified Letter to Dana

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 Wan and Council Members:

Good morning. I thought it would be a good idea for all of you to know that a certified letter was sent to Dana last week, along with the regular delivery of first-class mail to Bret. I have been made aware the letter, the certified letter, was received, and Dana has responded to me that she will answer all of my questions as soon as possible.

I am hopeful that by notifying you my questions can be answered and expedited sooner rather than later.

I'm concerned that the city may not be enforcing the condition of approval as specified in resolution 07-2020.

Below, please find a copy of the above-mentioned letter.

If you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience.

Thanks, 

Concerned Citizen

We appreciate you for reading this article.

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

Please support our cause with a small donation today!

Donate