Podcast Summary

Podcast: New Books Network
Host: Dr. Miranda Melcher
Guest: Dr. Mirya Holman
Book Discussed: The Hidden Face of Local Power: Appointed Boards and the Limits of Democracy (Temple UP, 2025)
Date: December 14, 2025

Episode Overview

This episode features a deep dive into Dr. Mirya Holman’s book, The Hidden Face of Local Power, exploring the significant yet underappreciated roles of appointed boards in U.S. city governance. The discussion investigates why some boards wield real power while others serve merely as symbolic gestures, and how this division shapes democracy and representation at the local level. The episode considers the origins, structure, motivations, and consequences of strong and weak boards, ultimately questioning whether these boards enhance or hinder local democracy.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Genesis of the Project

• Personal and Professional Origins:

  • Holman recounts how her inquiry began with a simple request to catalog the gender composition of New Orleans' appointed boards, only to discover that even city officials lacked a comprehensive list of board members.
  • “This is an elected leader who doesn't have like a full accounting of who's sitting on these appointed boards.” (04:01)

• Initial Research Question:

  • Started by seeking descriptive data but quickly realized the complexity and opacity surrounding the boards’ existence and membership.

2. Evolving Research Methods

• Archival and Field Research:
  • Holman engaged in archival research, participant observation (including serving on a board herself), interviews, and data collection across several cities.
  • Her approach became increasingly multi-method as new questions emerged from the evolving data.
• On the research process:
  • “My co-authors don't allow me to say anymore, ‘Oh, this is going to be an easy project,’ because you know that's not the reality.” (08:37)

3. The Duality of Appointed Boards

• Strong vs. Weak Boards:

  • Strong Boards: Have real policymaking power, control over resources, and only limited oversight from elected officials. Examples include zoning, planning, economic development, and employee boards.
  • Weak Boards: Serve in an advisory or symbolic role with little to no direct power, often set up to imply inclusion or community engagement without transferring actual authority.

• Motivation and Design:

  • Cities intentionally create two tiers—a strategic move to distribute or retain power based on political calculation, community pressures, and historical context.

• Quote:

  • “Strong boards have policymaking capacity. They often have direct resources that they control...And then there's a whole other set of boards that I call weak boards that don't have those same power and capacity.” (10:53)

4. Political Motivations and Historical Context

• Reasons for Strong Boards:
  • To ‘hide’ controversial decisions (deflect accountability) and to dispense patronage to political allies.
  • Historical context: As cities grew in the 19th and 20th centuries, these boards became tools for managing contentious policy (e.g., infrastructure, development).
  • “Elected officials want to hide when there's the potential that they're going to be making controversial decisions...if an appointed board…is making that decision, then all of a sudden the elected official has cover for making what might be a very controversial decision.” (14:12)
• Creation of Weak Boards:
  • Often arise as a response to demands for representation (e.g., civil rights advances, federal requirements for community involvement), but without real policy power.
  • “Cities do during this time is that they start generating a new set of boards to satisfy these demands for representation...but…largely without any power as a gesture of their response to these demands.” (21:31)

5. Inequality and Representation

• Systemic Inequities:
  • Women, people of color, and particularly women of color are disproportionately appointed to weak boards, while strong boards are dominated by white men and political donors.
  • “If you then look at women's representation on weak and strong boards, enormous disparities emerge…” (26:16)
• Membership Requirements:
  • Strong boards often have narrow, expertise-focused requirements (e.g., developers, real estate agents), whereas weak boards mandate broad representation across diverse, sometimes conflicting interests.
  • “The boards are created to cultivate particular kinds of membership...the board is essentially loaded with members who are going to be interested in pursuing a particular kind of outcome for that board.” (30:36)

6. Indicators and Identification of Board Power

• Clues of Board Strength:
  • Strong boards tend to be smaller, have consistent city staff involvement, and regularly appear in city council discussions.
  • Weak boards are larger, less supported, and typically only referenced in moments of crisis or for symbolic purposes.
  • “Strong boards are smaller in size and weak boards are large...strong boards are much more likely to have very close relationships with city staff…weak boards are often kind of on their own…” (28:16)

7. Policy Influence

• Actual Impact:
  • Strong boards can directly control resources, levy taxes, and enact policies (e.g., economic development incentives), while weak boards provide suggestions that are easily ignored.
  • “In many places there are some set of boards that by all accounts fully make the policy decisions…Whereas weak boards very rarely ever have that independent financial authority.” (34:17)

8. Limits of Democracy

• Holman’s Analogy – Veneer of Democracy:
  • The two-tiered system gives an outward impression of participatory democracy, but fails to distribute actual power, reinforcing inequality and disillusionment.
  • “I argue that these boards provide this veneer of democracy…we have policy making without deliberation among strong boards and deliberation without policy making among the weak boards.” (37:24)
• On the Likelihood of Systemic Change:
  • Institutions are self-reinforcing, and without intentional structural changes, the inequity will persist.

9. Improving the System

• Structural Solutions:
  • Applying the same institutional arrangements (size, staff support, resource access) to both strong and weak boards could foster genuine inclusion and policymaking parity.
  • “Cities could think really clearly about the structural arrangement of boards...apply the exact same rules about institutional arrangements to weak boards.” (39:35)
• Personal Advice:
  • “Try to get appointed to a board, but it should be a strong board.” (40:46)

10. Future Research

• Upcoming Work:
  • Holman is beginning a project with Tyler Simcoe on conflict in local politics, specifically analyzing school board meetings to understand the emergence and impact of local political conflict.
  • “We're really interested in when does conflict emerge, why does it emerge? And now we're expanding out that inquiry...” (41:24)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the invisibility and importance of boards:
  “We need to pay attention to them. There’s a lot going on here.” (02:10, Miranda Melcher)

• On practical research obstacles:
  “If you wanted to apply to be on a board, the form that you downloaded…was a word perfect document, which is not a form of file that is really used anymore.” (06:07, Mirya Holman)

• On democracy’s ‘veneer’:
  “It gives a veneer of democracy...it looks like we have representative groups of people sitting on boards...but once you open it up, it just falls apart like an IKEA bookcase.” (37:24, Mirya Holman)

• On the personal experience of board members:
  “People that sit on weak boards are like, this is a giant waste of my time. What am I doing here?” (38:30, Mirya Holman)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• [02:33] Guest Introduction and Book Motivation
• [07:50] On Research Methods and Project Evolution
• [10:50] Strong vs. Weak Boards Defined
• [14:00] Political Motivations for Creating Boards
• [19:12] Why Create Weak Boards?
• [25:31] Inequality Created by Board Structures
• [28:15] Identifying Strong and Weak Boards Locally
• [30:34] Board Membership Patterns and Requirements
• [34:15] When Boards Actually Influence Policy
• [37:14] Do Boards Improve Local Democracy?
• [39:28] Suggestions for Reform and Future Directions
• [41:14] Holman’s Next Research Project

Tone & Takeaways

• The conversation is engaging yet critical, rooted in a concern for democratic integrity and local power dynamics.
• Mirya Holman emphasizes the necessity of structural change to move from symbolic to substantive representation and authority in local governance.
• Practical tips and a guide for identifying board power locally are offered, alongside a candid discussion of ongoing systemic inequality.

For listeners interested in civic engagement, local government transparency, and the mechanics of power in American cities, this episode offers both sharp analysis and pragmatic insights.