Thursday night’s meeting was called for the purpose of collecting public input as to the project partners’ site remediation plan. Under applicable state law (Act 2), it is required that the partners have a “public involvement plan” as part of the remediation plan. But because new information about potential environmental hazards came to light AFTER the June 19 meeting, the Department of Environmental Protection extended the public comment period (even though they had already given approval to F&M’s plan on Oct 3. They said they would look into any serious concerns and include public comments in their final reports).
But even with all that being said, it’s inappropriate and poor public relations for F&M to refuse to answer certain questions. Why? Why not answer people’s concerns? Why huddle with your lawyer and decide that you’re not required to answer certain questions?
Until the coming of college president John Fry, F&M was widely perceived as bastion of academic integrity and public service. How quickly Fry has trashed his reputations and compromised the college’s through his bullying and obfuscations.
