by David King
At its June 24 meeting, the Clayton City Council criticized a recent Civil Grand Jury report, citing inaccuracies, misinformation, and perceived bias. Mayor Trupiano, Vice Mayor Wan, and Councilmember Diaz noted they had participated in multiple investigative interviews rebutting some accusations with evidence, to no avail. The council voted 4-1 to accept the language of their official response to the Grand Jury’s findings and included a strong dissatisfaction with the quality of investigation. The council’s formal responses to each of the Jury’s recommendation are printed below.
Grand Jury Recommendations with City Responses
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.
The City will not be implementing this recommendation because it is not warranted. The Council has already adopted guidelines for Councilmembers 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.
The City will not be implementing this recommendation because it is not warranted. The Council has already adopted guidelines for making public items that have been requested for inclusion in the Council’s agenda.
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.
The City will not be implementing this recommendation because it is not warranted. This is not required by any law nor statute and may be done based on available staff time.
R4: By December t 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.
The recommendation has already been implemented by the City.
RS: 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.
The City will not be implementing this recommendation because it is not warranted. Previous Council Guidelines section C.8.c does not state that Committees come to the Council for approval of actions to be taken. This enumeration was revised at our January 7, 2025 meeting. The new Council Guidelines section N.l.c. states, “Before sub-committees start moving in new directions, they will obtain direction from the rest of the Council.” It is the current state that Committees are not authorized to act on behalf of the Council but may act within the purview of their committee responsibilities.
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.
The City will not be implementing this recommendation because it is not warranted. 7 of 8 open City positions have been filled since February of 2025 and the City has experienced expected levels of turnover during the course of the last year.
Rl: By July 1, 2026, the City Council should consider ways to increase City revenue.
This recommendation has already been implemented. Prior to receiving this recommendation, the City has already and is currently considering ways to increase City revenue. Refer to response in Finding #11.
RB: 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.
This recommendation has already been implemented. Prior to receiving this recommendation, the City has already and is currently following Resolution 76-2022’s requirements. Refer to response to Finding #12.