The Denton City Council voted to move forward with the Renewable Denton Plan – a plan that puts Denton on the trajectory to power our city by 70% renewables by 2019.
No doubt, the secret, invite-only, block-if-they-disagree local Facebook groups are having a field day with the latest release of emails and documents and the supporting narrative by a city council member alleging corruption and collusion by city staff members, our third party consultant (that was chosen unanimously by the city council), and would be companies bidding for an opportunity to put into place the Renewable Denton Plan.
In fact, such allegations were part of the playbook from the very beginning. The call for a third party review of RDP – for most asking for it – was simply another way to stall a decision on the project in hopes of delaying it enough to build more support to kill the project. I pointed that out way back in January:
“There also continues to be calls from some people to stall the project until the city spends additional dollars seeking a third party consultant, “to objectively verify whether or not DME’s recommendation is the best way forward.” In most (not all) cases, calls for a third party consultant come from the same people who have stated explicitly on several occasions that they will oppose any efforts that involve the investment in gas generation in Denton. In other words, for these folks, their interest in a third party consultant does not stem from a desire for genuine objectivity – they have a stated interest in mind: shut down the Renewable Denton Plan if it involves the investment in gas generation. That’s fine if that is your perspective. But let’s not confuse things by calling for consultants when there are already possible results from such a consultant’s report that you reject before you ever read it.”
Just a few weeks later, Council Member Dalton Gregory made this prediction:
“I’m convinced, if we have a consultant that says anything to the extent that they think that the Renewable Denton Plan is a good plan, that we are going to have cries that it was a biased consultant, it was a flawed work, the consultant was not independent enough, and the consultant didn’t have enough renewable expertise…. If it came back with anything that confirms what DME did, that the same response would be, ‘it’s flawed, it’s biased – you need to hire another consultant!’ So how many consultants would we need to hire before we were satisfied?”
See Mr. Gregory’s comments in their entirety below:
To have political disagreements on controversial issues is expected – and healthy. Argue your case. Make a better pitch for your perspective. Involve yourself in rigorous debate. These are the glorious foundations of democracy!
But when you find yourself divulging into the depths of discourse by disparaging honest, hard-working, and first-class city employees in order to win the day, perhaps your case is thin.
The latest “news” was predicted long ago.