To the Editor,
At the most recent city council meeting — one promoted as “important,” “high‑impact” and “worth showing up for” — it started with a good crowd but quickly cleared out.
In a city of more than 80,000 people.
It’s easy to label that as apathy. It’s easy to say people don’t care. But that explanation is too simple, and it’s wrong.
Low turnout isn’t a sign that residents are disengaged. It’s a sign that the system isn’t built for participation.
This isn’t political. This isn’t ideological. This is structural.
People don’t attend meetings when they don’t believe their presence matters.
Residents make decisions the same way any rational person does: by weighing effort against impact. If people believe decisions are already made before the meeting begins, they won’t rearrange their evening to watch the final act.
That’s not apathy. That’s human behavior.
The city hasn’t built a culture of participation.
Communities with strong civic turnout didn’t get that way by accident. They got that way because leadership invested in communication, transparency, and accessibility over time.
If a city doesn’t build that culture, people won’t magically appear.
Meetings are not designed for regular working families.
This is logistics, not politics:
- Meetings held at inconvenient times
- Dense agendas
- Technical language
- No plain‑language summaries
- No clear explanation of why an item matters
If attending feels like homework, people won’t go.
People engage — just not in the room.
Residents are active in comment sections, community groups, neighborhood conversations, and op‑eds. They are paying attention. They are talking. They are reacting.
The city simply hasn’t adapted to the reality that civic participation has moved platforms.
People show up when something affects them directly
Turnout spikes when the issue touches someone’s street, wallet, safety, or daily life. That’s not selfishness. That’s bandwidth. People have limited time and energy, and they allocate it where the impact is clearest.
Lack of residents in the room doesn’t mean the community didn’t care
It means the community didn’t see the meeting as the place where their voice would matter.
That’s the real issue.
If Maricopa wants fuller rooms, it needs more than reminders and social media posts. It needs a communication strategy that explains issues clearly, a meeting structure that respects residents’ time, and a culture that shows public input isn’t symbolic — it’s meaningful.
People will show up when they believe their presence makes a difference. Right now, the empty chairs are telling us they don’t.
Sincerely,
Jeanette Oehlerking, Santa Rosa Springs
4 Responses
Jeanette is spot on with her evaluation here, but I think the article unfortunately overlooks the sad truth behind the matter – that this is functioning exactly as the city intends.
Our city leaders are actually very active online, and in fact the same individuals who do show up to run the city council meetings also own this very online publication. They will ignore any online discourse that is contrary to their own agenda, and will go so far as to delete or alter posted comments they don’t like on this site (let’s see if this one makes it).
They will often include calls to action in their online posts and articles, encouraging those who really want to be heard to show up for city meetings – where they can make sure the meetings are as boring and non-participatory as possible.
So to recap: the city owns the main local news source, selectively responds to or ignores discourse online, and directs those serious about “actual change” to attend the city meetings where they also control the floor. We are presented but an illusion of community involvement, and that is not by accident but by design.
Elias, just hire her already!
Amen to that!The the original author and the first commentator are so,so correct.The city hall meetings are presented by an exclusive group which the citizens and tax payers are excluded.Their agenda is like a freight train,unstoppable and mostly unwanted by the majority.But we’re just the financial catalyst.When attending a meeting you feel as though you are being told to shut your mouth,pay your taxes and we’ll call you if we need you.The big I,little u treatment.
Why would I make it a practice of showing up at a city council meeting when a past city manager is allowed to carry on with his addressing a constituent directly rather than the city council to whom he should be addressing? Or a City attorney spouts off rudely in telling a constituent to approach the microphone.
Neither have any business talking to constituents directly. They direct their comment to the city council (Chair) by invitation or by requesting to comment to the city council on the issue.
Some of us do forget the process and procedure. It is not my position anymore to be a part of a governing body.
I suggested Robert Rules in conducting meetings. Robert’s Rules of Order: “all remarks during a meeting must be addressed directly to the Chair, not to other members or individuals present, such as constituents.”