Another issue with performance contracting?

Yesterday I offered my view on why the Council majority has failed to:

1) seriously consider performance contracting and
2) create and implement a comprehensive energy action plan.

The answer? Even though Council members won't admit it, it's all about the town's debt burden. But at least staff have the courage to acknowledge the issue:

"The idea of having savings pay down the debt (on a performance contract) has enormous potential, but it's still viewed as debt on the books." (NHR, by Luther Turmelle)

I further opined that (based on the inaction of the majority) reasonable people could conclude the majority opposes energy conservation and is indifferent to wasting fossil fuels. But I don't believe that to be true.

Regardless, there is another conclusion that could be reached by reasonable people. That possible conclusion slipped my mind yesterday and I forgot to mention the Council's approach to governing:

How could I forget the heavy lifting done by this Democratic Rubber Stamp Council?! Let's give a big round of applause to the majority for their indefatigable use of The Rubber Stamp!

All kidding aside... yes, reasonable people may conclude the Council is simply a Rubber Stamp. But on this particular topic, a promise was made:
And that promise was made by the Council majority, not by staff. So even if this is a case of Council members being "overruled" by staff... I gently remind the Council majority of their biennial review in November '09.

We should and could begin to create a comprehensive energy action plan immediately and implement it within a year. Will we?

Tim White