Hours 1:18-2:21, 1/17/23

Item 22: Fire code updates

Every six years, the fire department updates the fire codes. At the January 3rd workshop, the fire department recommended some changes. The big one: retroactive automatic sprinkler systems.

Basically, sprinklers entirely prevent mass fatality events from fires. This is great! But they’re super expensive to install.

Who will be required to install sprinklers? Big venues that serve alcohol and hold 300 people or more. Think clubs, restaurants, and banquet halls, but also things like the VFW and Cuauhtemoc Hall.

Here’s how much they cost:

• $4-5 per square foot for the sprinkler system
• $25K for 150 ft of underground fireline pipe
• $5-10K for the sprinkler monitoring system, to make sure you’re maintaining water pressure and things like that.

So if your building is 5000 square feet, you’re looking at upwards of $50K. That’s really expensive. Everyone is very worried about the nonprofits like VFW and Cuauhtemoc Hall. They’re good community partners.

The plan is for the city to help with the one-time costs. The nonprofits will go get bids, and the fire department will use the revenue from inspection fees to offset the costs.  The inspection fee will be $100/year, and San Marcos is expecting to bring in maybe $100K/year.  So each year they can help out several non-profits, and plus maybe get some grant money in.  Council proposes a 3 year grace period for nonprofits to comply.

(I’m anticipating that local private businesses will also balk at spending $50,000 on sprinklers, so maybe this ends up coming around again.)

Item 23: Campaign spending limits

We finalize the campaign contribution details from this meeting. The spending cap will be set at $1 per candidate. Numbers will be based on the previous November’s registered voters.

Item 25: Decorum. 

You guys. This item was such extremely weird bullshit. Especially in light of how Jane Hughson shut down Max Baker – a private citizen now –  just one hour earlier. 

This is Jane Hughson’s item. Here is the key new bit:

To clarify: you’re allowed to identify individuals by name if you want to compliment them. You just can’t identify someone by name during a personal attack.

Jane is really hung up on “personal attacks”, and she believes deep in her soul that “personal attacks” are a well-understood, universally-agreed-upon phenomenon. She believes that “personal attacks” are worse than “personal insults” and that all of us would see eye-to-eye with her on what counts as a personal attack.

Now, this phrase is loaded. Back when Max Baker was on council, she used to accuse him of personal attacks every time they started squabbling. Max would counter that he was angry, yes, and stating his opinion, and that his opinion was grounded in fact. See? No room for ambiguity!

Jane openly says that she is talking about delivery style and not just content. You can say insulting things if you say them calmly. But if you display anger, then it becomes an attack.  (Jane has never used this phrase to describe, say, LMC, who generally keeps her composure when lobbing wildly personal insults at people like, say, Bert Lumbreras.)

Alyssa speaks up. She’s uncomfortable controlling anyone’s speech. If someone’s angry, she wants to know. She doesn’t take comments personally.  Sometimes she can then unpack how the person got there, other times it sometimes wakes her up to something she’s missing. It makes her uncomfortable when speakers come for staff, but city council can intervene and support the staff in those occasions. 

Jane says, “I know what you’re saying. But this is attacks. Not just saying things, but attacks. Tamp down the nastiness.”  She explicitly says that insults can be okay, but it’s the angry attacks that are not okay.

Tone-policing Max Baker specifically has come up before. And here’s part of what I said then:

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!

For the past three years,  Jane has lodged this complaint at Max, that when he’s angry, he’s attacking different people.  In the past two months, Max has become a private citizen who speaks at public hearings, and Jane is now wanting to add this specific phrase – “personal attacks” – to the rules for decorum.  It feels targeted at him with extreme precision.

Alyssa: Anger is a valid feeling, and I’m not uncomfortable with people expressing their emotions.

Jude Prather says that he prefers the phrase “personal insults” over “personal attacks”.  He thinks it’s clearer. “Personal attacks” is very vague. 

YES.

Alyssa asks what the difference is, anyway?  

YES.

Jane’s answer (at 2:16:32, if you’d like to go watch):  “My motion is the word attack because to me, it’s clear. Insult is not – to me – removable [from the chambers].”

In other words, her definition is “I know it when I see it. If you get thrown out, it was a personal attack.” Clear as mud.

There’s a little discussion of alternate ways that people can communicate angry, personal attacks. They can email or leave a message on Jane’s office phone.  The problem is that then the public – namely me! – does not know what people are mad about. I would like to know when people are mad!

The vote: 
Yes: Jane, Jude, Saul, Matt, and Mark
No: Alyssa

Alyssa says, “I’m voting no because I’m not sure future mayors will be able to differentiate between personal insults and personal attacks in a responsible way.” 

HA. HA. That is so diplomatic that it’s making my teeth itch.  You, Jane, are clearly an excellent arbiter of personal attacks! We’re just worried that the next mayor may not be dripping with quite as much wisdom.

Anyway, this council (minus Alyssa) just fell in line and approved it. They are the mushiest bunch of marshmallows.  Yawn, censor Max Baker? Scratch, readjust, hmm. If we vote yes, can we go home?