The Gatekeeper Trap

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ASPA as an organization.

By Renée Cardarelle
June 2, 2025

Public administrators often find themselves managing how people participate in the decision making process, from answering questions or vetting concerns to hosting public forums. When this is done in a conscious and purposeful way it can create a smoother and more effective governing process. However, all too often public administrators make decisions about whose voice is a part of the process without much forethought or planning and unwittingly find themselves serving as gatekeepers.

Sometimes this happens as public administrators redirect individuals away from the governing process out of a sense of duty. For example, public administrators often want to serve and protect their elected officials from the constant demands and needs of the public, especially when the public is responding with emotion. As one city administrator in rural Minnesota said, “Elected officials have full-time jobs. It’s really a volunteer job for them, whereas this is my living, and I feel I need to be accessible to the public. Our elected officials can’t do that. They’re at work during the day.”

Other times this redirecting happens out of a desire to make the decision making process more efficient. Every governing unit has its mundane operating functions such as paperwork, daily maintenance or financial management. There is often an assumption that the public doesn’t need to be involved in these necessary operational tasks and in some cases, such as human resource decisions, it is necessary to exclude the public in order to maintain confidentiality. These efforts to ensure the necessary tasks of governance are completed in a timely manner may prompt some public administrators to minimize public inquiries.

While this process of managing the public’s access to governing decisions is important and necessary, it can lead to problems when it is done in a hurried or unreflective way. In some cases, public administrators become a sort of gatekeeper, centering some voices while excluding others from the decision making process. The common saying, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease,” is an example of this. Those individuals who have the most access to the public administrator or who are loudest and most persistent can unduly influence how governance functions while the concerns or needs of individuals who are more remote or even unwilling to come forward can end up ignored.

It is human nature to gravitate toward those we have the most in common with. People seen in our everyday lives, individuals who speak the same language or have the same cultural practices, are easier to connect with. Unwittingly public administrators may find themselves listening more to those who are more like them, which can lead to the marginalization of the needs and interests of individuals who are not as accessible. If the public administrator hasn’t spent time thinking through how they respond to public needs and inquiries, they may find themselves unconsciously giving some people more access to the decision making process than others.

Over time this centering of voices from those who are more visible can result in bias which can ultimately serve to benefit some groups over others. It can also result in a feedback loop in which those who are being heard the most often continue to bring forward ideas and those who are not being heard remove themselves from the process further marginalizing their voice. Limited time and resources also make some groups more difficult to communicate with and exasperate this gap.

This gatekeeping effect can and is minimized when public administrators do two things. The first is to think through how to respond to public questions and comments and create a system for public input which is consistent. By developing this type of process, administrators become more conscious of who is bringing forward concerns and who is not and can begin to identify when one set of voices are having an oversized impact.

The second thing public administrators can do is become more proactive in their approach to the community instead of simply listening to those who are coming to them. Developing a system for reaching out to all members of the community, even if they make up a smaller portion of the larger community, especially those who are seldom heard from, is an important step public administrators can take to make the system more equitable. This proactive approach is not easy. It takes resources and can be time consuming but it is an important part of ensuring decisions are being made which consider all parts of the community.

In the course of their daily duties, public administrators frequently find themselves managing public participation in the decision making process. Too often this management process goes unexamined and public administrators unconsciously serve as gatekeepers, allowing some voices to be more centered in the conversation than other voices. As public officials it is important for administrators to take the time to explore how they handle their gatekeeping role, asking themselves if they are actively including as many voices in the public decision making process as possible. If not, they may want to consider which voices are being excluded and what they might change so that these voices are heard. To truly be inclusive in a way which involves all community members, public administrators need to put extra effort into hearing from those voices which are less often heard.

---

Author: Renée Cardarelle has a PhD in Management and Public Service from Hamline University with a focus on public participation in the governing process. In addition to her work in academia, Renée has also worked in the nonprofit sector and in grassroots organizing for more than twenty years.

(3 votes, average: 4.33 out of 5)
Loading...