Jude Prather and Shane Scott brought in three measures:
1. There need to be some sort of time constraints when an item runs too long.
2. Rules of decorum need an update
3. All city council members should show up in person, instead of zoom.
Some context: Everyone understands that these are targeting Max Baker. The recent debate over the lobbying ordinance is looming large in everyone’s mind. (And Max is the only one still zooming in from his home.)
The crux of the debate is this: Max gets into arguments from the dais. One side interprets him as being rude, repetitive, combative, and violating professional norms, like committing personal attacks. Moreover, they want to prevent him from doing this.
The other side says that these interpretations are fraught and subjective. Furthermore, the urge to shut Max down is part of a long tradition of how people in power stay in power. It perpetuates the status quo if you silence anyone who doesn’t fit right in to the existing power structure. (This is correct.)
Now first, every communication has two layers:
1. a surface layer – your tone, your word choice, your mannerisms
2. a deeper structure – the actual content you’re trying to communicate
These proposals are all attacking Max on the surface level, and trying to police his tone, word choice, and mannerisms. They are not taking issue with his ideas. This is a very old tactic – you focus on someone’s tone, and then you don’t have to engage with the content. Historically, requirements for the surface level (“professionalism”) were used to prevent anyone besides old white dudes from participating, unless they pandered to the old white dudes. Accusing someone of being unprofessional allows you plausible deniability – you weren’t against their ideas, but they were being so unprofessional!
Here is the utter hypocrisy: These three discussion items are themselves an example of a polished, professional surface layer – all Jude and Shane did was submit items for a policy discussion! Superficially, it looks like they are seeking a return to collegiality.
It’s the deeper structure that’s the problem. Targeting a single colleague like this is rude and counterproductive. If you have a problem with a colleague, you talk to them, and then try mediation or bring in a third party. You don’t blast a memo out to the company with ostensibly neutral rules that happen to apply very specifically to your nemesis.
Jude and Shane cloaked their attacks on Max by putting it into policy proposals. They want to crack down on overt rudeness, but then run wild with stealth rudeness embedded in these three proposals.
Finally: Trying to shut Max down is absolutely wrong. And it is also true that sometimes Max can be very frustrating. But other times, he’s the passionate champion of values I hold dear. People are complex.
Before I sum up the councilmembers, let me list some of my burning thoughts:
- Why do our council meetings last for 6+ hours? It’s not because Max is an intense speaker. What happens in bigger cities?
- It was implied several times – mostly by Max and Alyssa Garza – that off-camera, councilmembers say plenty of rude things, but then play nice for the camera. Certainly plausible, but it’s hard to interpret what’s going on, from the outside.
- You know what really wasted everyone’s time during the lobbying debate? The fact that Shane Scott managed to get everyone to postpone it for the umpteenth time. There are plenty of polite ways of wasting everyone’s time. Very professional.
Onto what was actually said:
Jude Prather: Kind of conciliatory, did not say much.
Shane Scott: Forgot he was even there.
Mayor Hughson: Fairly problematic in this conversation. She brings an absolute turd of a proposal, where she would ding anyone who personally attacks anyone else. If they persisted, and enough councilmembers agreed, they could be ejected and forfeit their vote on the issue. She tries to define personal attacks, and goes off the deep end with subjective language about viciousness, repetitiveness, and smirks.
She cannot stop interrupting Max Baker. He even requests that “No interruptions” be considered as an explicit rule of decorum, and she says, “No, I am not going to stop interrupting you when you say something factually wrong.” She may be correct that Max has said something factually wrong, but she’s shooting herself in the foot by interrupting him as often as she does.
Alyssa Garza: Consistently saves this council from itself. She explains about respectability politics and tone policing, and gets everyone on board with some cultural responsiveness training from a high quality consultant.
Mark Gleason: Mostly fine. He stands strongly opposed to any kind of time limit on discussions, and does want councilmembers to attend in person. He makes an earnest plea for the humanizing parts of being together in person, breaking bread together, etc.
Max Baker: Hard to summarize, since he was the subject of the entire conversation. He points out that anger and repetition are rhetorical techniques, and that they are trying to change how he delivers his words. He does correctly point out that we already have “calling the question”, which ends debate on an item and moves it onto a vote, and so time limits aren’t really needed.
He also tells Mark to fuck off (not in so many words) with his plea for humanity, and says to Mark, “The last time I saw you, you told me that I’m a fruitcake, and that I needed to skip off.” Max and Mark get snippy with each other over the things that were said in the course of campaigns. It got heated.
Saul Gonzalez: Silent per usual.
In the end:
– Everyone is on board with a Facilitated Retreat, run by someone who can offer cultural awareness and responsiveness mediation.
– the idea of time limits is discarded in favor of judicious use of calling the question.
– Max Baker and Jude Prather will get together and come up with a proposal to govern councilmembers zooming in to meetings and executive sessions.
The San Marxist 