Notitia Platform 
Grand Jury Exposes Clayton City Council’s Dysfunction, Financial Woes, and Legal Violations
The Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury’s report, released on June 2, 2025, titled “Clayton: Small City, Big Concerns,” unveils a troubling pattern of dysfunction, mismanagement, and legal violations within the Clayton City Council. Highlighting 12 city managers in five years, opaque decision-making, and an unaddressed financial crisis, the report underscores a severe erosion of public trust and governance.Link
Background
Prompted by a March 2024 editorial in The Pioneer calling for investigation, the Grand Jury’s findings confirm long-standing concerns about Clayton’s leadership. The report details chronic instability, with 12 city managers, eight finance directors, and five community development directors between 2019 and 2024, far surpassing turnover rates in other Contra Costa County cities.
Key Issues
Revolving Door at City Hall
The Grand Jury attributes high staff turnover to poor council-staff interactions, noting that Clayton’s 12 city managers—four permanent and eight interim—contrast sharply with the one or two managers in most county cities. This instability disrupts city services and incurs significant costs for recruitment and contractors.
Transparency and Brown Act Violations
The council’s agenda-setting process violates the Brown Act by restricting public participation. Until January 2025, an unofficial Agenda Setting Committee—comprising the mayor, vice mayor, city manager, city attorney, and city clerk—controlled agendas with minimal transparency. A new rule requiring written agenda requests to the mayor further limits councilmember input and public awareness, updated only quarterly. In 2024, 48% of committee meetings were special meetings, reducing public notice to 24 hours and often omitting public comment opportunities.
Financial Mismanagement
Since 2021, Clayton has faced a structural deficit, relying on a 1 million shortfall by 2028. Despite warnings from finance experts and city managers to explore revenue options like sales or parcel taxes, the council has taken no action. The Citizens Financial Sustainability Committee, formed in 2022, lacks qualified members, meets irregularly, and operates without transparent minutes, rendering it ineffective.
Rogue Committees
Council committees, including the Clayton Business & Community Association (CBCA) Negotiation Committee, have acted without authorization, rejecting offers without council approval. Only six of 25 Brown Act committee meetings in 2024 allowed non-agenda public comments, and just two posted minutes online, further stifling transparency.
Grand Jury Recommendations
The Grand Jury issued eight recommendations, to be implemented by December 1, 2025, with one due by July 1, 2026:
- Establish a fair process for agenda item requests.
- Maintain a public list of agenda item statuses.
- Require online posting of committee minutes.
- Ensure public comment at all regular meetings.
- Enforce council rules to prevent unauthorized committee actions.
- Investigate staff turnover causes.
- Explore revenue-generating measures to address the deficit.
- Adhere to qualification rules for financial oversight committee appointments.
City Response
On June 17, 2025, the council formed an ad hoc committee to review the report, with Mayor Kim Trupiano and Vice Mayor Jeff Wan appointed to prepare a response, to be presented at a special meeting on June 24, 2025, at Endeavor Hall. Councilmember Holly Tillman has publicly advocated for transparency and urged action, while Jeff Wan posted a personal critique on Facebook, questioning the report’s accuracy, though it lacks official weight.
Community and Political Context
The report has intensified community scrutiny, with groups like Clayton Watch arguing it contains misinformation and unfairly targets certain councilmembers, while others, including Tillman, see it as validation of governance failures. The Save Clayton/Clayton Watch movement is criticized for fostering divisive politics, contributing to the council’s dysfunction.
Conclusion
The Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury’s report serves as a wake-up call for Clayton, exposing a council plagued by instability, legal lapses, and financial inaction. With public trust at stake, the council’s response to the recommendations and the ad hoc committee’s findings will be critical. As residents demand accountability, Clayton faces an urgent need to restore effective governance and fiscal stability to its small city with big concerns.