The sponsors don't like doing math. They don't like thinking about decision theory and how they might have to anticipate possible outcomes that might dictate a different schedule. That's how we got committee of the whole scheduled on the same as a regular session. That's how we get the sponsors not anticipating the question of killing a referral to committee the whole by canceling the committee of the whole. The economic and sustainable development people who sat there last week for three hours in vain waiting, only to find out that the committee the whole will be canceled, were not served by this. It didn't benefit staff. They had to be there because we might talk about their legislation. The sponsors say that they're concerned for the concerns of staff. But they can't seem to remember that standing committees have a scheduled time so that they can be scheduled sequentially. And everyone who attends them knows when they're going to end. And everyone benefits from knowing that, including staff. In short, in general, the sponsors and the obvious majority here tonight, don't get committees. They've never gotten the basic idea behind committees. They've never tried to get why anyone would create a set of standing committees. They don't get committees or procedure. They only know what they were used to back in the good old days, when their convenience...
Councilmember Volan, please. Please address the legislation and not the integrity or or the motives of the of the sponsors.
Mr. Rollo, I'm not... Once again, I'm being interrupted, for something I didn't do. If you're offended by this, Mr. Rollo...
No, no, no, I'm not offended. But you did, you did characterize the sponsors in ways that were personal. And I'm asking you to stop.
No, I don't I don't agree with that, sir.
You just did. I mean, you call into question their motives. Please, continue, but it speak to the legislation
Sir, the process for that is called taking down words. If you'd like to take down the words that I said...
You said they didn't know how to use math. Did you not say that?
That's a personal attack Mr. Rollo?
By saying that they are incapable of using mathematics? Addition?
I'm going to need the council to tell me what words are allowed to say that are
No, no, no, no.
You're taking everything as a personal attack
No, no, no, no, I'm not. I'm saying address the legislation. Don't address...
I am doing that.
Yes. Proceed, then, please.
I believe that the sponsors have not done their homework, sir. And they don't want to do their homework. They think reading the packet is enough. Is that a personal attack, too, sir?
Yes, it is. It is. I think that's incredibly unfair. I mean, we're debating procedure. We're debating procedure. And there's there's there are pros and cons to both sides. So please address why you oppose, you oppose...
I think this is partisan effort, to I mean, this is a factional effort to prevent deserved critique. And this is not the first time it's happened to me, sir.
You have a floor.
Until you interrupt me again. The homework, Mr. Rollo has always been understanding why Rules of Order exist. Why Robert's is set up the way it is, and how other ordinary assemblies like ours do business. And they have not done that homework. The sponsors claimed that committees have been tried. The 22 months they keep saying has past were really 10 months—when I was president. The discretion of the two presidents who have followed me have not included any interest in referring legislation to standing committees. And there was the constant reminder from Mr. Sims that the committees passed by a five-four vote, as if to say that that doesn't count because it's almost not passing. The same is going to be true here tonight. But they haven't even thought about the process that they've already lived through. You said, Mr. Rollo, in your report earlier tonight that we should bring back the planned unit development. But you were wholly involved in the development of the new zoning ordinance that eliminated PUDs. What, were you, too busy? Too overwhelmed by that massive piece of legislation to prevent that change? We're all busy. We're all overwhelmed and dividing up the work among members has been willfully interpreted, misinterpreted, as factionalism. Why aren't you supporting the professionalism of staff who do such heroic work as the sponsors have been saying tonight, how important this is for staff? Why wouldn't you support a land use committee that was created in the wake of the PUD that wrought havoc in our schedule because we tried to negotiate it during a committee of the whole and a regular session in 2016. It caused the meeting to run till after 1 a.m. The hypocrisy here among the sponsors is remarkable. And yet here I am being told that I'm making personal attacks. There's no mechanism that the sponsors have thought about for a special committee to extend itself indefinitely. When I organized a special committee in 2012, on street design and engineering standards, it was created and ended in 2012. Why did the affordable housing special committee take three years to deliver its report? Maybe because the issue was important enough that it needed, it needs attention still. It's only the number one issue of the Hamilton administration, they're proud of their record of having built affordable housing. Everybody knows that it's a big deal. But the majority here doesn't think that it's big enough deal for the council to focus on it. I have more to say. But obviously, my opinion is not valued. So I wonder why it is that the majority wants me to even show up the committee of the whole.
