Clayton Watch Political Action Committee Fighting To Amend Civil Grand Jury Report On City Of Clayton

A political action committee in Clayton has taken the rare step of asking a Contra Costa County judge to amend a Civil Grand Jury report, alleging that the publication contained factual errors, procedural violations, and language that unfairly damaged the city’s reputation. In a formal petition filed on October 21, 2025, Gary Hood, controlling officeholder of Clayton Watch (FPPC ID #1471612), submitted a 56-page request to the Contra Costa County Superior Court seeking to correct and clarify portions of Civil Grand Jury Report No. 2505, titled “Clayton: Small City, Big Concerns.” The report, issued earlier this year, examined the operations and governance of the Clayton City Council and raised concerns about staff turnover, budgeting, and internal procedures.

In his filing, Hood argues that the report contains “verifiable factual inaccuracies,” misused accounting terms, and misleading descriptions of city operations that have led to public confusion and mistrust. Clayton Watch maintains that the document, as published, mischaracterized the city’s finances, overstated the number of city managers who served in recent years, and implied potential violations of the Brown Act without providing evidence. The petition emphasizes what it calls a “serious procedural defect,” claiming that the Civil Grand Jury failed to follow California Penal Code §933(f), which requires that any city or agency discussed in a Grand Jury report be given at least two business days to review the final draft for factual accuracy before its release. According to the filing, the City of Clayton never received that pre-release copy. Statements from the city manager and mayor, included in the exhibits, confirm that the city was not afforded a review period before the report’s publication.

Clayton Watch further contends that the report’s title “Small City, Big Concerns” is prejudicial and suggests widespread dysfunction not supported by the findings. The petition proposes replacing it with a neutral title such as “Civil Grand Jury Report 2505: Review of Clayton Governance and Operations.” It also argues that several key data points in the report’s financial section were inaccurate, citing the city’s audited Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports (ACFRs) to show different revenue, expenditure, and fund balance totals. Hood asserts that the Grand Jury’s use of the term “Net Surplus” was incorrect because it is not a recognized accounting term under government standards, and he asks that it be replaced with “Net Change in Fund Balance.” The filing also disputes the report’s statement that the City Council “declined to take any revenue-enhancement measures.” According to the petition, the city in recent years has updated its fee schedule, strengthened business license enforcement, renegotiated its waste-hauling contract, revised investment policies, and begun preparing for a 2026 ballot measure to increase revenue.

Another section challenges the Grand Jury’s assertion that Clayton has had twelve city managers since 2019. The petition argues that the figure includes temporary or acting appointments and that, in fact, only five individuals have served as permanent city managers over the past two decades. It names those managers and references official city records as verification. Clayton Watch also disputes the report’s reference to potential Brown Act violations in its discussion of council agenda-setting procedures. Hood says the report misleads readers by associating internal administrative processes with statutory open-meeting laws, despite no evidence or citations indicating an actual violation. The petition requests that this language be struck or revised to clarify that the discussion concerns internal council guidelines only.

Beyond correcting these alleged factual and procedural errors, the filing seeks broader judicial acknowledgment that the Civil Grand Jury did not comply with the review requirements of state law. Hood argues that this failure deprived both the city and the public of a fair opportunity to confirm the report’s accuracy before it became part of the permanent record. Legally, the petition relies on California Penal Code sections 925 through 933.05, which outline the procedures governing Civil Grand Jury reports, and it cites several key California Supreme Court cases—People v. Superior Court (1975) and McClatchy Newspapers v. Superior Court (1988)—that affirm the Superior Court’s authority to review, modify, or strike portions of a Grand Jury report that contain errors or exceed legal limits.

The document further argues that Clayton Watch, as a civic organization advocating for transparency and accountability, has legal standing to seek this correction. Citing Green v. Obledo (1981) and Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. City of Manhattan Beach (2011), the petition notes that California courts have allowed public-interest groups to petition for judicial review when government actions affect community trust or the integrity of public records. In its closing statement, Clayton Watch insists that the petition is not meant to undermine the Civil Grand Jury’s authority but to ensure that the public record is “accurate, complete, and consistent with law.” Hood writes that the goal is to preserve the integrity of the oversight process and restore public confidence in both the City of Clayton and the Grand Jury system itself. Even if the court does not order changes to the report, the petition asks that the verified evidence and proposed corrections be made part of the official record for future reference.

The case now rests with the Hon. Terri Mockler, Presiding Judge of the Contra Costa County Superior Court, who will determine whether to review or amend the public record under the court’s supervisory authority.

Read the full petition at the Diablo Gazette by clicking HERE.