Clayton

Grand Jury Releases Report on Clayton City Council Shenanigans

CC News01.6K views

On Thursday, the Contra Costa County Grand Jury released a report on the Town of Clayton – Small City, Big Concerns.

Although names were not provided, within the report, it highlights many areas of known concerns that have been raised by many on the actions by Mayor Kim Tupiano, Vice Mayor Jeff Wan and Councilmember Jim Diaz.  Basically, operating in the shadows and apparently the Grand Jury agrees.

The report highlights that in Clayton, staff turnover exceeded that of other cities in Contra Costa County noting it has had 12 city managers between 2019-2024. Whereas 15 of 19 cities in Contra Costa County had one or two city managers—except the City of Antioch who had 6.

The grand jury also took issue with items being placed on agendas, inconsistent with the requirements of the Brown Act and ad-hoc committees taken action not approved by the city council. Also noting, committees scheduled 48% of its meetings as “special meetings” during 2024 while limiting public participation.

The report also states the City has run a deficit in its annual operating budget since 2021, relying on its reserve funds to balance the budget. Several City Managers over this time, with expertise in public finance, have encouraged the Council to take steps to reduce or eliminate the deficit. The Council has not taken action to increase revenue

FINDINGS

  • F1: Since 2019, Clayton has had 12 City Managers, eight Finance Directors, and five Community Development Directors
  • F2: The level of turnover of City Managers in Clayton is greater than other cities in the County.
  • F3: Prior to January 1, 2025, the City Council did not follow its established guidelines for inclusion of an agenda item despite requests over the course of 15 months by a council member to do so.
  • F4: Prior to January 7, 2025, the public could learn of requests for agenda item inclusion in real time when proposed by council members in open session.
  • F5: Subsequent to January 7, 2025, the public could learn of requests for agenda item inclusion only by an oral report of the City Manager made once per quarter.
  • F6: Prior to January 9, 2025, there was a City Council agenda-setting committee meeting, held regularly with the Mayor and Vice-Mayor along with the City Manager, City Clerk, and City Attorney.
  • F7: Committee meeting minutes are not consistently posted as a standalone document in the column provided on the City website.
  • F8: In 2024, 52% (13 of 25) of committee meetings were scheduled as special meetings. Consequently, opportunity for public comment on non-agenda items was eliminated.
  • F9: Regular meetings of committees do not consistently place on the agenda an opportunity for public comment on non-agenda items, which violates the Brown Act requirements.
  • F10: The CBCA Negotiation Committee neither informed nor sought approval from the Council at a public meeting for actions taken, contrary to Council Guidelines.
  • F11: Revenue shortfall has been identified and confirmed as an issue by several City Managers since 2022. However, while the Council has discussed the issue, it has taken no action to increase revenue.
  • F12: The City Council did not follow the established requirements in Resolution 76-2022 for selecting members of the Citizens Financial Sustainability Committee.
  • F13: Committees formed by the City Council are not authorized to take action (other than advice and recommendations) without the Council’s approval.

RECOMMENDATIONS

  • R1: By December 1, 2025, the City Council should consider adopting a new procedure for Council Members to request items be placed on future agendas.
  • R2: By December 1, 2025, the City Council should consider directing the City Manager to maintain a written, on-going list—available for public view—of all items that have been requested for inclusion in the Council’s agenda and either the date on which the item will be agendized or the reasons for denial of inclusion.
  • R3: By December 1, 2025, the City Council should consider directing all committees to post their minutes as a standalone document in the minutes column of the City website.
  • R4: By December 1, 2025, the City Council should consider directing all Brown Act committees to place on the agenda the opportunity for public comment on non-agenda items for all regular scheduled meetings.
  • R5: By December 1, 2025, the City Council should consider enforcing the Council Guidelines (City Council Guidelines and Procedures Section C.8.c) that committees come to the Council for approval of actions to be taken.
  • R6: By December 1, 2025, the City Council should consider directing the City Manager to conduct a study of the causes of senior staff turnover.
  • R7: By July 1, 2026, the City Council should consider ways to increase City revenue.
  • R8: By December 1, 2025, the City Council should consider following Resolution 76-2022’s requirements for qualifications of members to serve on the Citizens Financial Sustainability Committee

To read the report: Click Here

Related

Related posts

April 25-26: Clayton Art and Wine Festival Returns

Advisory: Upcoming Roadwork in Contra Costa County

Tillman Bypassed Again, Clayton Names Wan as Mayor, Enea as Vice Mayor