I wonder about two things.  

One, the last time the Legislative Clownshow--excuse me, "Council"--voted on this issue, the numbers were reversed: everybody for recklessly forking other people's money over to a few cronies, only one opposed.  Surely the public has a right to know what considerations led its representatives to revise their positions in such a wholesale--excuse me, that just slipped out--fashion?  Wouldn't it be nice to hear them have to say, "I am a bad boy (or girl) who got caught with his (or her) hand in the public cookie jar"?  But no, "executive suppression" covers all sins,  spreading the shame so no one will have to appear personally responsible for the stinking corruption of the first vote.

Second, what were Kito's reasons for dissenting?  One man willing to stand against 13 on such a loaded issue might be worth hearing from.  Even if he is wrong.