Let me see if I got this right:
What sense would it make
- The week before the last meeting of the Industrial Authority (IA) Wiregrass Biomass LLC sent a letter to the IA asking for an extension of the agreement to build the biomass incinerator. (June 1, 2011, is the current deadline.)
- Based on comments made by Chairman Paulk and others, all indications were that the IA may have been ready to vote down such an application for an extension of the agreement.
- However, the vote on biomass never came up at the IA meeting, and as a matter of fact, biomass wasn’t even discussed, as it was not even on the agenda. Apparently a few hours before the IA meeting, “biomass” (or a vote on the extension of the agreement with Wiregrass Biomass LLC) was removed from the agenda.
- This change of events (i.e. the removal of a vote on biomass) was based on an initiative by Mr. Jennett (Chair of the IA board), Mr. Ricketts (Project Manager of the IA) and Mr. Gupton (the IA lawyer) who went to Atlanta to have a little chat with Wiregrass Biomass LLC (or Sterling Planet).
- As a result of that talk, Wiregrass Biomass LLC withdrew their application for an extension of the agreement. Thus, there was no contract (or an extension of a contract) to vote on at the last IA meeting.
for Wiregrass Biomass LLC to send “a new letter with different deadlines” according to Mr. Call? How is that different from the original letter that apparently asked for an extension of the current agreement with the IA, which for all practical purposes must have had a “date” in it (e.g. December 31, 2011)?
After all these months of protests and at a time when it is clear that the community (including members of the LCC and CC) do not want and/or support this project anymore, we are still playing games? What on earth are people like Mr. Jennett and Mr. Ricketts thinking, and how on earth is it possible that members of the IA board (e.g. Mr. Bennett) haven’t even seen the original letter?