The backroom dealings between Williams Petroleum and certain Argyle Town Council members is the topic of an opinion piece in today’s Denton Record Chronicle. The Chronicle names the following players: Wayne Holt, Argyle Town Council member, Lemoine Wright, former Council member and Williams Petroleum.
The glass is still dark in Argyle
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
We don’t claim the expertise to comment on the potential for environmental damage, but we have plenty of experience smelling out brother-in-law deals among public office holders, and the aroma from Argyle is familiar.
I think it might be against the law to use your political office for personal gain.
Political corruption is the use of legislated powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. Misuse of government power for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is not considered political corruption. Neither are illegal acts by private persons or corporations not directly involved with the government. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties.
Forms of corruption vary, but include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement. While corruption may facilitate criminal enterprise such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and trafficking, it is not restricted to these activities.
The other player that keeps turning up like a bad penny is Williams Petroleum. I was forwarded, from a person I do not know, a long chain of emails in which Williams Petroleum Community Outreach employee, Kelly Swan, was a participant. Swan has assured residents near the Argyle CCF that it was “only temporary.” The following quotes from Swan’s emails destroys his credibility–not that he had much. (I’m removing names. Swan’s quotes are bold and in brown to resemble bull crap.)
“Mr XYZ, I received your email about our Argyle site from MMM. I know we’re in the process of installing some temporary equipment on that Jeter Road site while we work to complete the purchase of an alternative one.”
That statement is contradicted by the same representative on 5/22/2010, again I quote…
“For the long term, we continue to evaluate the permanent location for the 12 tanks and other facilities, such as compression and additional tankage. At this point it’s about 50/50 whether it will be the Jeter Road site or an alternative site.”
The two of these statement side by side damage any clarity and credibility in my mind as to the real intentions of Williams. How can Williams expect rational response to their words or actual work if they can’t maintain credibility? What is the real intent as to permanence of the CCF location? They need to have their feet held to the fire. Concerned neighbors need to ask the person who made these statements questions such as;
Doesn’t “…work to complete the purchase of an alternative one.” Imply that an alternative site has been located and the purchase process has begun?
If so why is there only a 50/50 chance predicted in your May email?
If it does not imply, why was it phrased in that manner?
What impacts the 50/50 ratio?
In your May statement you mention “…additional tankage.” What does that mean? How many more tanks?
Like I said, I don’t know the person who sent me this email but, “Thank you!”
Another person told me yesterday that he has an email from Swan that says, “…if we decide to move the facility…” That friend didn’t want to forward me the email for fear of damaging his relationship with Swan. :\ So don’t pay any attention to that part because it’s just hearsay.