Re “PXP Rejects Camarella Invitation to Participate in Symposium. Now What?”
When fracking symposium organizer Tom Camarella was asked this morning how PXP’s refusal to participate affects the potential Aug. 4 event, he told the newspaper:
“I am working on something else.”
A different venue, in case the City Council balks on Monday night to making Council Chambers available because PXP will not join in the event?
“No,” Mr. Camarella said.
Does this mean the symposium is off? he was asked.
Mr. Camarella said he could not answer until after he had read the oil company’s reasons for turning away his request to participate in what he said is intended to be an informational event.
With Mehaul O’Leary traveling abroad until the end of the month, only four City Council members will be available for deciding whether to allow the now endangered anti-fracking program to be held in Chambers.
A tie vote is a possibility.
Vice Mayor Jeff Cooper came closest today to saying that PXP’s absence will not change his mind about allowing the use of the Council’s homeroom.
“It is PXP's prerogative to participate or not,” he said. “I look forward to Monday night’s discussion because I am supportive of this forum that will educate people regarding the issues of hydraulic fracturing.”
Said Jim Clarke about the drastically changed lineup:
“If you are asking me if the Council still is favorably inclined to make Council Chambers available – when both sides won’t be represented – I would say no.”
When Mayor Andy Weissman was asked how PXP’s rejection colors Monday’s dais debate, he replied:
“I don’t know. For there to be a full discussion, it seems to me you would need two sides. If the League of Women Voters is actually going to moderate, as opposed to timekeep, I would think you would need two sides to the discussion to create an environment for education rather than having one side do all of the talking.
“I don’t know that the Council would be favorably disposed toward having an event in City Hall that is completely onesided.
“If you only have one side of the table, you probably are not going to have an event. This goes as much for (organizers’) consideration as it does for us. How can they bill an event as intended to educate if there aren’t two sides to the discussion? They may have to rethink their timing, rethink the nature of the event. They may want to wait until after the fracking study has been released” and goes before the Community Advisory Panel.
“Then there may be more of an ability to have a two-sided discussion. I am skeptical about the value of a onesided discussion.”
For her part, Meghan Sahli-Wells, who had not yet read PXP’s rejection letter, she said it was “too bad” and “unfortunate.”
“They say what they are doing is completely safe, and I think this would be a good opportunity for them to educate the public,” she said. “This is a disappointment.”
Does the turndown change her Monday night vote?
“I have to read the letter first,” Ms. Sahli-Wells said. “I don’t know. But if PXP changes their mind, that would be great. At the meeting where we passed the fracking resolution, most Council members, including myself, said ‘we need more information.’ I would think it would be in PXP’s interest to provide it. Not in confidential memos or reports 200 pages long, but just telling the public what it is they are doing. Public access really is important. Again, I am disappointed they would not provide the information.”
