In a recent discussion, Saskia Kennedy spoke with Fullerton City Council Member Ahmad Zahra about his role and responsibilities. We engaged in a Q&A session that delved into the challenges and rewards of serving the community at the municipal level. This is a three-part series.

Q: Does public opinion really influence city decisions?
Zahra: Yes and no. Some officials prioritize donors or inner circles over the public and justify it with excuses. That’s why I encourage participation. Even if you lose a small battle, collective action can win the larger fight. Showing up is how you hold officials accountable.

Q: What do you say to residents who feel ignored or disillusioned?
Zahra: I understand how hard it can be to get answers. That’s why I ran for council. Persistence is key—keep attending meetings. If one person isn’t enough, bring three or four. I’ve seen one person make a difference.
You don’t always need three votes on the dais. I’ve helped solve issues by rallying support outside meetings. The press can also apply pressure.
Democracy is a continuous dialogue. Even if you elect someone you trust, you still need to show up.
My preferred method of communication is in person. Especially on major policy issues, being present matters. And council meetings can be entertaining—bring popcorn!

Q: Are younger people becoming more engaged?
Zahra: Yes. I’m encouraged by increased youth involvement in local councils. Even though life is busy, community engagement is essential for accountability and a healthy democracy.

Q: What is the biggest challenge in municipal governance today?
Zahra: Meaningful community engagement. Future council members must rely on community support—not donor influence. Community power is the only power that truly ensures honesty and good governance.

Q: What’s your stance on Fullerton becoming a charter city?
Zahra: I oppose it. The phrase “local control” can be misleading. State law still governs cities regardless of charter status. Look at Huntington Beach—a charter city that has challenged the state on divisive issues and lost.
Charter cities can set their own bidding processes and election rules. That concerns me. It could enable favoritism in contract awards or weaken election safeguards, such as term limits. Ballot measures can omit key details, creating loopholes. Remaining a general law city provides stronger oversight and safeguards.