Survey Results (Nov 2025)

HEADLINE FINDINGS

• 65% of respondents reported satisfaction or strong satisfaction with the current GA system; 28% reported dissatisfaction or strong dissatisfaction.

• 60% expressed openness or neutrality toward considering changes to the governance structure; 40% preferred the current system with only minor adjustments or wanted no change at all.

• 66% of respondents attend GA meetings at least three times per year, meaning the survey skews toward regular participants. The perspectives of less-frequent attendees are present but represent a minority of responses.

• The open-ended responses revealed a community that values direct democracy deeply while recognizing specific operational frustrations, particularly meeting inefficiency and attendance-dependent representation. Full treatment is in Part 1, Section 3 of this document.

SURVEY QUESTIONS:

1.) Respondent verification (n=63)

All 63 responses are included in the figures that follow. Excluding the four non-standard responses does not materially change any finding.

2.) How often do you generally attend GA meetings? (n=62)

3.) How familiar are you with Ophir's GA form of government? (n=61)

4.) Overall, how satisfied are you with Ophir's current GA form of government? (n=61)

Combined satisfied or very satisfied: 40 of 61 (65%). Combined dissatisfied or very dissatisfied: 17 of 61 (28%).

5.) If you attend rarely or never, what are the main reasons? (Select all that apply; 56 respondents answered)

Question 5 was multi-select. Counts reflect respondents who selected each option, not percentages of total responses. The "I do attend regularly" row is included for completeness; those 19 respondents skipped the substantive options.

6.) How open are you to considering changes to Ophir's governance structure? (n=62)

Combined open or neutral (top three rows): 37 of 62 (60%). Combined resistant (bottom two rows): 25 of 62 (40%).

Question 5 (write-in): Additional reasons for not attending

12 respondents added write-in comments.

[03] Frustrated with previous efforts to be involved in GA when I did attend more regularly.

[09] I am not allowed to vote.

[20] Meetings are too long and often controversial. I believe all voting should be by private ballot.

[25] They drag on

[26] My spouse attends on Zoom and I just listen in, but don’t participate because I’m usually busy with family

[34] Long standing cultural "group think" mentality within general "regular" attending participants make meetings difficult to stomach.

[37] Don't feel I have enough information to participate effectively

[41] They are too long and not well managed. The same people talk in circles.

[43] Meetings can be painful with people repeating themselves over and over, or repeating points made by others over and over. The GA is really just whoever shows up that particular night, so there are often uninformed people, which requires that things get expalained to them, even though there might have been ad nauseum discussion about that same thing at the previous GA.

[44] Prior negative experience in a town volunteer role.

[57] Last too long, too late

[62] Have better things in my consciousness than governement.

7.) What are the greatest strengths of the current GA system?

56 of 63 respondents answered this question.

[01] Those who want to participate in government can do so quite easily.

[02] None

[04] I honestly believe allowing all residents of this very small community a voice is incredible. I for one have seen times in the past where the entire staff wants something and it goes against what the majority of residences think. To be able to keep staff in check is a very important part of a functioning government. While i believe on a larger scale staff aligns very well with the desires and direction of the community there are times that when is comes to detailed items or projects this is not the case

[05] It gives everyone a vote. I have no faith that a town council style of government will be better for Ophir. There is no single person in this town whom I would trust to make consistently good decisions for Ophir.

[07] If I want my voice heard, I know it will be.

[08] I think the greatest strength of the GA is our direct democracy. It’s powerful and rare that everyone has both a voice and a vote, and that every vote truly counts. It allows us to stay directly involved in shaping how our community is run, and I really value hearing and understanding my neighbors’ thoughts and concerns. We’re a strong, lucky, and connected community because of it.

[09] Relative simplicity

[10] It worked when Ophir was originally formed and there were 20 or fewer citizens.

[11] Not much

[12] Simplicity

[13] Very representative, everyone has a direct voice.

[14] I like the concept bc it is such a unique form of govt where my voice and vote directly affect decisions

[15] Pure democracy. Equal input for everyone that attends the meeting.

[16] Despite its perceived inefficiencies, it’s a true democracy where all who chose to participate have equal say and vote.

The current system encourages greater participation than other examples of Govt. allowing all residents to have a voice should they want to be heard.

Though participation can be argued as low, if 15 residents attend a meeting, that’s 10% of our community. I argue that few communities can boast that high a % of participation. Some agenda issues through the years have pushed that participation to 30+% of residents demonstrations strong community passion and buy in.

[17] everyone has a voice, each vote truly counts

[19] every voice matters if you show up to participate and vote

[20] Things move slowly and this gives time for everyone concerned to make their voice heard. More people give options or new ideas, or clarify what exactly the problem is, and how to fix it affectively with support from most of Ophir residents.

[21] allows everyone in the community the opportunity to meet, engage and make decisions that are in the best interest of the community at large

[22] Purest form of democracy - everyone gets a say and everyone gets a vote. We discuss important issues as a community and we all get to hear each others' thoughts.

[23] We all get to vote! Direct democracy

[24] Allows all residents the choice to participate in the decision making process

[25] Ability to realize action on issues brought to GA by community members, all can provide input

[26] Every single person has a voice every single time if they choose.

[27] Everyone has a voice. We get great turn out and good representation when there are issues of importance.

[28] Everyone has a voice and vote in community decisions

[29] It slows down growth and keeps unnecessary personal agenda projects in control of the residents as opposed to a few elected officials.

[30] More opinions

[31] If someone has a agenda item that is important to them, they can show up and have direct input and representation.

[32] Everyone has a voice in every issue (if they want to). It's truly direct democracy.

[33] Direct input if you can make the meeting

[34] All residents having a vote! A vote on monthly agenda items to ordinances. This keeps any "regular participants" or "elected officials" from pushing their agendas. The General Assembly ultimately has the vote. True form of Democracy!

[36] Minimizing a few people who have lots of time to dictate our government.

[37] That everyone in the Ophir Community has a vote that impacts our town directly.

[38] The GA format affords every resident direct involvement in governance through both deliberation and voting, creating strong accountability. The structure naturally promotes fiscal discipline and environmental stewardship because residents directly vote on what's necessary and internalize those decisions. It also compels residents to participate directly and become involved on a regular basis promoting a more constant connection with self-governance.

The distributed nature of GA decision-making provides natural protection against outside interests. Ophir will inevitably face significant development pressure. The GA structure makes it much harder for outside interests to influence outcomes because they would need to convince dozens of engaged residents rather than a small number of elected officials. This distributed power structure helps preserve the minimal government and development restraint that most residents value and protects our unique environment.

[39] everyone has equal opportunity to participate in decision-making, committees, etc.

[40] Everyone has an EQUAL voice/vote.

[41] Each person has a vote - it feels democratic.

[42] Great that anyone has the opportunity to bring ideas, issues and concerns to the GA to discuss and/or to enact change or adopt new policies.

[43] It's nice to see neighbors

[44] It’s good to see neighbors.

[45] Everyone registered can vote to decide what the town does

[46] When a person feels strongly about an issue they can affect change or at least have their voice heard easily.

[48] participatory democratic governance

[49] Community input, voices are crucial

[50] “Want to” from community members. They want to be involved. Volunteer spirit.

[52] Anyone being able to participate/vote directly on any issue

[53] I deeply believe in true democracy and this is one of the greatest things about Ophir.

[54] It promotes the highest level of voter participation

[55] The ability to be directly involved in governance that directly impacts me.

[56] It is community minded and everyone has a chance to speak

[57] Everyone gets a say.

[58] People who want to participate are able to

[59] Purest form of democracy. It has rarely erred in its decisions.

[60] When a major issue comes up, people show up and vote. It’s not efficient. It’s democratic.

[62] a limitation as to what "elected" individuals are able to do without a GA vote. Note how corrupt our local town of Telluride, town of Mountain Village and San Miguel County governments have all proven to be with their "elected" individuals and "town council" forms of government.

[63] nothing

8.) What are the greatest weaknesses of the current GA system?

55 of 63 respondents answered this question.

[01] Uninformed GA members delay decision making and often a majority of the meeting is spent trying to explain details of the meeting packet that they should have read prior to attending the meeting.

[02] We are effectively without governance except when the GA is constituted. The format of the GA disenfranchises many voters with obligations that preclude attendance and amplifies a small number of voices. It makes the GA singularly ineffectual.

[03] It's driven by a small group of the most opinionated personalities instead of allowing people to reach consensus. People typically just show up when they have an opinion about an agenda item already and if they can get 5 or 6 people to come to the meeting they can decide on the future of the town.

[04] The inefficiency can be seen as both a weakness and a strength as it tends to slow the process and allow things to be given the time needed to discuss items and has out the details

[05] People being uninformed and voting. There are procedural changes that can help with this, though.

[07] People asking questions that have been answered repeatedly, thus making the meetings last for hours.

[08] I think the greatest weakness in the GA system is that, during contentious issues or votes, the room can sometimes be filled with participants who don’t regularly attend or fully understand the topic, and whose emotional responses rather than informed perspectives can shift the outcome at the last moment. That said, the process still works as intended—everyone has the right to show up, have an opinion, and cast their vote.

[09] Ineffective public discourse/debate

[10] The Ophir GA form of government excludes voting rights and representation if one is unwilling or unable to attend meetings and so excludes over 80 percent of the electorate. Meetings make poor use of participants time and are run inefficiently. Decisions are made by a self-appointed small group of attendees who lack expertise in topics under discussion. Voting and decision making is driven by self interests rather than what is for the greater good of the community. The GA government only exists during the two hours that meetings are taking place each month leaving the rest of the month without a functioning governing body or representation for community members.

[11] A few regular attendees make the decisions.

[12] Simplicity

[13] Too many people come to the meeting completely uniformed on the topic. Voting by Zom with your screen off is completely off base.

[14] i suppose if one doesn’t go to meetings regularly then their vote /voice is not heard

[15] When GA members flood a meeting with supporters to pass a bill they favor..

[16] *Open ballots/voting potentially violates personal discretion and privacy, and potentially allows for votes to be swayed by the pure pressure of how friends and neighbors may vote.

*No time & response limits on agenda discussions and rebuttals. This potentially allows for some personalities to take more time than necessary to communicate repetitive points, suppressing others from making their’s, for concern of prolonging discussions or bring talked over.

[17] lack of particpation

[19] government is slow, but so is every form of government

[20] I would like for Robert's rule of order be generally followed. It is not a popular position to take, and it's not something that most people want to enforce. Still, I believe that many residents don't come to meetings because they take too long.

[21] it becomes circular and inefficient at times... meetings can drag on with a strange combination of not enough community members engaging overall, along with a few too many people who are trying to catch up on the topic at hand despite previous discussions, and then simply talk too much, too many times.

[22] Long GA meetings; circular discussions; often times lack of clarity in written ordinances and motions made. Lack of clarity presented on certain issues, for example, in the solar discussions.

[23] Bureaucracy

[24] GA system relies on voluntary inconsistant participation

[25] Inefficient, slow, redundant, less likely to have consistency (changes dramatically based on meeting attendance)

[26] Not enough people take advantage of their right to participate

[27] People are often not fully informed when voting.

[28] Lack of participation from many in the community. Important and time sensitive decisions can be delayed while masses are informed in previous about things discussed at previous meetings

[30] People who come in and don't know what they're talking about who can sway votes without being educated

[31] Efficiency of the system

[32] It can seem like a slow process. And such a relatively small number of residents involve themselves, but that won't necessarily change with a new form of government.

[33] Many people can not make the meetings

[34] The facilitation of many indoctrinated agendas by "philanthropy" efforts to heavily influence those "regular" participants. Allowing a constant platform for liberal ideology and philanthropy to influence those in attendance. The fostering of those active participants and town staff to remain in positions of control and employment while performing below expectations and not allowing other capable residents any opportunities to perform better.

[36] Can feel inefficient at times and certain people do slow the process.

[37] Every month a topic has to be discussed at length because new people attend the meeting and don’t know what’s going on. And this wastes so much time. People don’t read the packet and do not show up to the GA assembly educated about the topics.

[38] The composition and attendance at GA meetings varies significantly month-to-month, which creates inconsistent decision-making and lack of institutional continuity.

Attendance fluctuations can be strategically manipulated - residents may mobilize neighbors around issues affecting them personally, which can skew representation away from broader community priorities.

Managing complex legal matters and executive sessions is particularly difficult with rotating participation. Members who didn't attend a prior executive session need to be "read in," which wastes time and can compromise the effectiveness of confidential discussions.

The Town lacks ongoing decision-making authority between monthly GA meetings. All policy decisions - even routine or time-sensitive ones - must wait for the monthly GA, creating operational delays and forcing minor administrative matters to consume meeting time that could be spent on substantive community issues. This also places excessive burden on the Town Manager to track and implement directives without ongoing governance support between meetings.

[39] conversations go round & round, with some people speaking often & long. Facts need to be revisited frequently (more than just briefly at the start of a meeting), statements get duplicated. If someone hasn't been attending (or even if they have), and that person hasn't done homework prior to the meeting or is regularly confused, it feels like we start all over again at the next meeting. Meetings can get packed by a minority opposition, shutting down progress on a project that has seen general support for months.

[40] Sometimes it may take longer to accomplish things. Sometimes this can be a good or bad thing.

[41] It takes way too much time and town money to work through changes.

[42] It can often times feel overwhelming and discussions can be long, tedious, and confusing. And right now in this current season of my life as the parent of a small kiddo it feels hard to choose to participate.

[43] It is not nimble. It has resulted in things getting passed that aren't necessarily in the best interest of the Town (IMHO), but passed because an interested party brought enough friends to a couple of meetings. It gives every registered voter the same voice, even if they have no idea what the issue at hand is really about. Yes, this is pure democracy, but it has demonstrated itself to have an ill-informed electorate.

[44] Too many to count. Water lines that needed replacement decades ago…

[46] Meetings can get cumbersome with many opinions and citizens getting easily sidetracked while trying to make points.

[48] manipulation in voting blocks

[49] Attendance is weak

[50] Zoom voting should be discontinued. Community members should be present to vote. Also, the screen during the meeting should be black when not in use. It is large and has become omnipresent a focus for GA members in Town Hall. GA members often end up staring at it versus making eye contact with the persons in front of them.

[52] Anyone being able to participate/vote directly on any issue

[53] Lot's of different opinions makes it so we spend lots of time getting nothing done.

[54] It gives a disproportionate impact/influence to to the loudest voices

[55] Just a Few people can have huge impact that affects every resident.

[56] We stay on one topic for much too long at the expense of other essential issues like water. While I love that everyone has a chance to speak, the same questions will be asked or discussed over and over and over. It is unclear how certain items become so important without the entire town's knowledge. Only a handful of people can try to push through an issue, which creates tension in the town.

[57] everyone gets a say, to often a group can push through an item because they overpower non attendees (their own fault). Not always in the best interest of Ophir the town.

[58] inconsistent attendance

[59] Bringing the GA up to speed on the issues

[60] A lot of effort may go into a project by town staff or volunteers and then get shut down: inefficiency.

[62] The Egos and agendas of the most active participants, as well as the general "group think" aspect off this culture

[63] The old guard runs things and doesn't want to give any of their fiefdom away

Question 9: Any other thoughts on Ophir's form of government?

43 of 63 respondents answered this question.

[01] GA members should be limited to one comment per agenda item (staff members should have ability to present/answer questions and that not count towards their one comment)

[03] The GA and the way we vote leads to very personal and divisive politics over the most mundane topics. The cost/benefit of showing up and voting means that typically only the most opinionated people, or people with something to win or loose show up and vote. It doesn't seem like it is reflective of the will of the voters in general.

We seem to jump from around from hot issues and there is little long term thinking or executive function.

[05] I'm totally against reforming the government in ophir at this time. Such a waste of everyone's time that could be better spent on any of the numerous other issues facing Ophir.

[07] It's novel, and it's a delight.

[08] I think our GA works well; we need to act like the strong, capable community we are—focused, confident, and proactive. Instead of reacting to distractions, let’s stay aligned on the big things: planning for the future, researching water system upgrades, securing grants, and strengthening our infrastructure and emergency readiness so we can dream big and thrive.

[10] A Town Council-Mayor-Manager is considered "best practice" for small town governments by the Colorado Municipal League. The Town Hall or GA form of government has fallen out of favor throughout the US and has been uniformly replaced with a representative democracy with optional public participation in council meetings. The voting electorate comprises about 150 eligible voters in Ophir while the GA includes only 10-25 people, depending on the month. The GA is not equivalent to the tax paying electorate.

[11] I like the changes that were being proposed.

[12] Happy to hear about alternative options

[13] Remove voting from the zoom platform. Attending by zoom is fine but you can only vote in person. Also if joining by zoom you are treated as public, not GA, thus limited comment allowance. 1 comment and 3 minutes max. Too many rambling drunks.

[15] The GA IS unique for a unique town

[16] Ophir’s limited and minimally transitive population affords few regularly active participants over time. A selectman or council arrangement could further limit participation down the line, once all residents willing to serve have done so, limiting the pool of future candidates without an undesired population influx or turnover.

[17] we are tryuly unique. Although sometimes frustrating every voice truly counts. It is difficult to keep current town positions filled and I can't imaging council seats would be much easier.

[20] I think any improvements should be thoroughly discussed by most residents. Tweaking a few things to make meetings shorter and more organized would be good, rather than throwing the whole GA idea out the window and giving a lot of power to a few people. Most people are used to being able to attend meetings and voice concerns. The idea of a council is such a stretch from the GA format, that it's too big a change for many Ophirians.

[21] I think one of the reasons Ophir is still so awesome is because of how it has governed itself over time. I don't think we should change the system significantly; we need to preserve our individual voices and votes, and do our best to act in consensus. That said, there is clearly room for improvement in how to better educate and engage community members, and how to more efficiently make certain decisions and take actions.

[22] I'm interested in [a committee member's] hybrid GA idea. Also, what happened to the mandated quarterly mayor/town manager report? I think it would be helpful if that came back. "Here's what's happening at town hall .... with a list and status of things that staff is working on. It was very informative to the people who read it, and kept people updated.

[23] I think with such a small community, a true town council would not work in my favor. I have strong beliefs on how Ophir should progress and I fear that the only people that would be able to be part of a town council would not necessarily be like minded. I understand the need to look at this issue and I am excited to hear options that are more sustainable for a small community such as ours.

[24] Participation should be incentivised or someway mandatory

[26] My biggest concern is that only those who are wealthy enough to not have to have full-time jobs will end up running for government, and we will be governed by people who don’t represent all socioeconomic levels of our community

Perhaps we should try and just do anonymous voting I feel like a lot of people who are driving. This are too scared to speak up in front of their neighbors because they don’t want to be judged and if we would just have a closed anonymous vote their neighbors wouldn’t know how they stand on different topics

[27] I think we could use some improvements, like limiting the number of times the same person can speak at meetings.

[28] I appreciate all the community members who have been involved. Let’s brainstorm ways encourage people to join committees and be involved.

[30] I do think a representative form of government is better

[32] I think about how no one (including myself) wanted to step up and be mayor when [the prior mayor] was ready to step down. So I wonder how many people would step up to be on something like a town council here. Seems like the GA form of government isn't the problem, it's Ophirians lack of involvement (or care?).

[34] I believe our current form of government has been and will continue to be the best form of government for the town of Ophir of the past and into the future. It's greatest weaknesses are at times it's greatest strengths. If not for the stubbornness of a "General Assembly" possibly our current situation would be much different. It won't always be the best or the most efficient and that in itself has helped to keep Ophir, Ophir. Please don't waste anymore time, money and energy attempting to change a system that isn't broken. It will ultimately come down to two readings and the "Ophir Culture" will be in full presence to vote it down. What a waste of time and effort it will have been and again how disappointed those driving this agenda will be with "their" current form of government. Possibly Ophir isn't the place for them?

[38] I believe Ophir's form of government ought to consider the big picture of the long term evolution in demographics of both the Town of Ophir and the Telluride region as a whole.

[39] its a really difficult form of government in which to make progress in a timely manner

[40] It’s not perfect, but nothing is. I do not think a council or representative govt would work or be good for our town.

[41] Meeting management style is my largest challenge with being more involved in Ophir. Things take more time than I have able to share.

[42] I would like to express my gratitude for the small few that do show up monthly and those that volunteer to be on committees. .

[43] - In Ophir, virtually all direction and all actions taken to achieve any goal can only come from the GA.

• The GA exists only between the opening and closing gavels, 2-4 hours, once a month. This does not enable the Town to be nimble and rather drags out decision making over at least a month, if not months.
• The 7-voter quorum we still use in 2025 was adopted in 1979, when there were just a handful of residents. When the same 7 people generally show up to GA meetings and make decisions for the rest of the Town, that sure feels like a Town Council.This makes it a governing body that is both easily manipulated for personal gain and also lacking of one important aspect of governance, a continuity of institutional knowledge. The direction agreed upon in one GA could easily be forgotten, neglected or rejected the following month, merely by having one or two different voters in attendance, a strategy that is often used to achieve personal ends.
• Without a well-informed decision-making body, uninformed GA members often make emotion-based (my gut says...) decisions. The GA in general often engages in emotion-based debate over issues, rather than having dispassionate debate about the factual merits of a proposed motion.

[44] People who show up only to vote and lack the context of what they’re voting on, is frustrating.

[45] The GA is one of the things that really attracted me to living here

[46] I think the GA is an appropriate form of government for a residential community of our size.

[49] Provides the town government with ideas and solutions in public forum. Discussion and debate are necessary for decision making.

[50] It is the best form of government except for all others. Whose government is working well right now? What is that example?

[52] Sometimes it seems like the GA moves too slowly, but I have come to see that as a good thing (most of the time).

[53] Even with it's issues, I'm proud we have the greatest form of governance I've ever been a part of.

[54] I appreciate the equality of the GA. Can we consider changes that will distribute voice and opinion equally (limiting voter input during discussion, private vote, required voter education to better understand our legislative process, required voter eligibility verification - to name a few ideas)

[55] It is unique.

[56] If there is an issue that affects the entire town, I think there needs to be notice in PO boxes, as they do in Telluride. Thank you so much to [the committee] and everyone for working so hard on this!

[57] Inability to enforce basic town rules

[58] Seems to provide citizens ability to Participate when they want

[60] I do love direct vote, a show of hands. I have concerns about government by representation becoming a group of people with free time who do not necessarily share community values running the town. I feel like this is what has happened on the national level and I hear people saying, “How did we let this happen?” I don’t want that to happen here. I know it isn’t practical, but with the current system, everybody has an equal vote all the time, so if they care enough, they’ll show up and vote. It might be better if we got updates about decisions as they are evolving, surveys like this, so the community could weigh in more and Town government could gauge what the GA will elect for or against.

[62] It's not broken! Let's not fix something that isn't broken. [a committee member], you wouldn't have moved here if this place was broken. Don't try to fix it! Leave it be, Please!!