Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1962-02-15

gram of school fallout shelter
construction sought by county
officials was wit h h ED by
Board members until firm poll
cies and plans for community
protection are established by
the County.
The Boards agreement was
sent along to the County Coun-
Gil as supplement to its S16.5
building budget for the next
fiscal year.
1t sets a limit of 20 per cent
on any increase in funds Board
members would like to see the
Council appropriate for con-
struction of the two shelters
one in an elementary school, the
other in a junior or senior high
school-and stresses that the
shelters should be paid for out
of the countys capital budget
and not the school systems.
Not Educational Costs
"Incremental costs attributa-
BILE to civil defense in building
new schools, in changing exist
ing facilities or in building new
single-use shelters on school
property are properly civil de-
Tense, not educational costs"
the Boards statement says.
Therefore, such costs are prop
erly part of the county rather
than the school capital budget"
Both shelters contemplated
should be designed to accom-
modate only their normal
school-day popula ito H." the
Board agreed, and not be
planned to serve as protection
for residents of surrounding
communities.
The Board turned down its
Civil Defense Advisory Comnit4
tees proposal for construction
of dual-use shelter space for
classrooms on a ratio of space
for one out of every four stu
dents and personnel in each
school.
"A 4 to / ratio" said the
Board, "means that entire ele-
mentary schools would have to
be built underground (this)
constitutes an impairment to
education"
Express Concern
Board members repeatedly
expressed concern over the lack
of clear-cut policies and plans
for civil defense preparedness
in the county, as well as need
for clarifying the School Boards
role in meeting the countys
needs.
They heard School Supt. c.
Taylor Whittier declare that
the sole responsibility of the
school system is to provide ia
cilities clearly educational in
nature" and that providing fall
out shelters for children on a
24-hour basis is mot the bust
ness of the Board of Educa-
ton"
Whittier said he had consult.
ed with the Boards attorney
and determined that school
shelter construction is Outside
the normal prerogative of those
concerned with maintaining
educational faci' es."
Board member Robert E.
Morrow went even further,
maintaining that it is "fal-
lacious for us to get into a pro-
gram of spending money for a
kind of protection that may be
entirely inadequate"
81 seriously question whether
there is any point at all in
wasting public funds on fallout
shelters when all they provide
is deceptive security, rather
than genuine security" Morrow
said.
Unless the School Board can
develop a program tied into the
total community plan. he said,
there is no sense in it,"
ITS pointless to have chill
dren surviving in their schools
with no parents"
Question High Cost
Morrow also questioned the
high costs of school shelter con-
struction-estimated by one
group at least $500 per inhabi-
tant- aid said: "We'll end up
bankrupting ourselves before
the Russians have a chance to
destroy us"
Morrows was the only dis
senting vote in the 81 approval
of the Boards agreemnt on the
two pilot shelters.
Their resolution said Board
members are willing to cooper.
ate fully with the County Coun-
(Continued on Page y