Unity or Participation? Norman Bennett v. Meredith Ellis

First Norman Bennett explained that the problem was that the community needed to unite behind the VLCIA so investors wouldn’t be scared away (no video of that; sorry). Then Meredith Ellis, who wasn’t even signed up to speak, begged to differ:

She seems to be in favor of what the VDT wrote a week later:

2010 appears to be the year that saw citizens far more engaged in the political process than they have been for decades. Similar to the 1960s, when questioning the government became de rigueur, this year has seen citizens involved in public forums, the election process, and many local issues that have come before local governments.

Taxpayers want to know where their money is going and what it is being spent for.

She mentioned that participation might make some people uncomfortable. What do you think?

-jsq

1 thought on “Unity or Participation? Norman Bennett v. Meredith Ellis

  1. Thank you

    Mr. Bennett wanted the community to unite behind Sterling Chemical when he was Chairman of the Lowndes County Commission. Mr. Bennett’s son receieved employment by Sterling after the Commission brought Sterling here. Subsequently Mr. Bennett and all Commissioners except Joyce Evans were voted off the Commission.
    Mr. Bennett is married to Dr. Robin Bennett, the principal at Moulton-Branch Elementary, the closest school to the proposed biomass incinerator. I’m sure the parents of those schoolchildren are asking some tough questions right now. I would imagine both Mr. and Dr. Bennett would like the community to unite in favor of the biomass incinerator but that is not going to happen.

Comments are closed.