Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 4 · column 8 of 9 · from the scan, no model involved
As to his contention that our county taxes will rise with passage of the referendum, this can be refuted by several factors. (1) It is the prerogative of the board of supervisors to set the tax rate, not of the school board. (2) The editor’s comments following Mr. Eastham’s letter indicated that statewide the manner of selection of the school board has no direct correlation on the per pupil county expenditure. (It is unfortunate Mr. Eastham doesn’t show as much concern for the legitimate problems of our school system such as the high teacher turn-over as he does in being the self-appointed guardian of the public treasury.) (3) If as Mr. Eastham fears, the supervisors will be under pressure to appoint those with a “spend-spend mentality’*, it seems equally likely they will be under pressure to appoint those with a “save-scve mentality”. I hope the supervisors would consider other qualification such as concern for the quality of education besides fiscal philosophy.
Passage of the referendum is a step in the direction of improvement of our school system. I urge your yes vote on June 17th. Our children deserve nothing less.
JERRY MARTIN
Maintenance
Supervisor
To the editor:
When the ’80-’81 school budget was presented to the Rappahannock County School Board, a maintenance supervisor for the two county schools was recommended by the superintendent. When the budget went to the board of supervisors, this item had been cut. In light of the events at Rappahannock County High School on May 7 and 8 and the statements made by school personnel at the May 13 school board meeting, the decision to cut out the maintenance supervisor was obviously done without the safety of the children in mind.
At the May 13 school board meeting, individuals from the school and community were questioned in regard to their role in the near boiler explosion at the high school. It was revealed at this meeting that while the principal and custodians had been dealing with the boiler, none of them have expertise in this area. This is understandable as their jobs should not require this knowledge. What is not understandable is why the board was assuming that one of these people could.
93.9%