Give surplus back to the taxpayers
In case there was any doubt about where Rock Hill school district's priorities are, one only has to look at the vote and forthcoming action from our illustrious school board. It clearly shows that the district worships at the altar of sports. Nothing else is more important than sports, it seems.
Like our politicians in Columbia and Washington, the public needs to wake up and figure out to not listen to what they say they're going to do, but watch what they do and how they vote with your money. Here's an interesting idea: If there is a surplus, that just has to be spent on one-time expenses (or does it?), and if the school board is not going to invest it in academics, how about giving that excess money back to the taxpayers? Further, if there is a surplus, does that mean we will not see any tax increases from this same board in the foreseeable future?
Keith R. Sutton
New turf could prevent injuries
I realize that artificial turf for Rock Hill's District Three stadium is a costly investment and that school board members' constituents are concerned. However, if the board asks athletic trainers at the three high schools, I think they will find that injuries to athletes are less on field turf than on the old style turf or on grass turf that has been pocked and marked up by constant use during the year.
A good playing surface reduces injuries, which reduces medical and insurance costs to the constituents' families and the school. Even the best of grass-turf fields will become worn under constant use by teams and bands. Add into the mix a two-day rain prior to a football game, and the field is ruined for the rest of a season.
Why does district have a surplus?
Regarding the Rock Hill school board's vote on the artificial turf and scoreboard, I would like to know first how was there a $3 million surplus in last year's budget. Inflated budgeting or tightened spending or a combination of the two.
Regarding the revenue from the scoreboard advertising: What will be the net after expenses? What will the maintenance cost of the artificial turf over the current field be over, say, 10 years? Will future budgets be more closely scrutinized to reduce such huge surpluses?
Harry J. Williams