To the Editor:

Mr. Thomas Councill’s defense of his earlier statements and criticism of citizens and councilpersons for their response reveals a very short and convenient memory (“Subject of letters, guest columns defends himself,” Aug. 5).

I read the same letter to the editor sent by Mr. Councill (“Hilliard, Johnson need to weigh in on redistricting,” July 24), as did Mr. Jim Rainey and Ms. Rosa Lawrence and Councilwomen Raystine Johnson and Mary Hilliard. While it is true that Mr. Councill wanted to hear others’ comments about the possibility of an alternative redistricting plan, a legitimate request, he surely did not stop there.

It was Mr. Councill who introduced “divisiveness” into the mix with his racially charged rhetoric advocating an agenda that called for “black rule,” saying that “adopting black-majority rule would be a historic and momentous change” and demanding that Johnson and Hilliard “make it clear where they stand on redistricting for black rule of the city.”

He offered no credible thought to suggest why this would improve our city. It is for that over-the-top, divisive, racially charged rhetoric for which he has been justifiably criticized.

Mr. Councill seems to think that anyone whose ideas differ from his has a “political agenda.” Well, Mr. Councill, these public servants have an agenda that, along with Mr. McLemore’s, is put on display every second and fourth Monday evening at City Hall.

The citizens of Franklin can easily see whose agenda champions growth and progress in our city for all of its citizens.

As for Mr. Councill’s charge of attempts to “link me to foolishness,” he seems to need no help in that regard. And he’s right, “the facts are the facts.”

Rick Ivey
Franklin