A $2.1 Million Deficit and a Seniority List

Criteria first, so the board is choosing on principle rather than on a list of names: protect intervention capacity at the lowest-performing school; preserve legally required services; do not fund recurring cost with one-time money; hold the 7% floor; and be explicit in public about what is being traded.

Applied:

• Drawing $1.4 million from fund balance is the weakest option as presented. It converts a recurring $2.1 million problem into a $0.7 million problem twelve months later plus a thinner reserve, while the insurance trend continues. A 9.2% balance is a rating cushion, not a revenue source. It is defensible only for a genuine one-time transition cost.
• The 4.1% levy needs a supermajority. After a recent referendum-style climate and the board's own division, I would not bet the budget on a 60% vote. If pursued, it must be presented alongside the cuts so the public sees a trade rather than a wish.
• Realistic package: roughly $1.1 million in reductions via attrition, retirements, non-personnel, and administrative consolidation; about $0.5 million in structural revenue or fee adjustment; and up to $0.5 million of one-time fund balance for severance and transition, with a two-year plan to eliminate the remainder.

Sequence: present all three options with a three-year projection, not year one alone. Boards choose the least-bad option when they can see the cliff after it.

Seniority rules and the collective bargaining agreement make seniority the determining factor for layoffs, so the superintendent's real levers are what happens around the list, not ignoring it.

Legitimate levers:

• Attrition and separation incentives. Offer an incentive to high-seniority, high-salary staff. That can remove the 22-year elective teacher with nine students voluntarily, and it frees the salary line without a fight.
• Position control rather than people. The board can eliminate a section that enrolls nine students as a program decision, then apply seniority to the remaining positions in that tenure area. That is policy, not favoritism, and it is defensible in public.
• Reassignment within certification rather than excessing where a shortage area exists.
• Check the special education position's funding stream and tenure area before assuming it is on the same list. If caseloads exceed guidance and the position is IDEA-funded, that is a legal exposure to raise with counsel and the board, in writing.
• If the contract permits performance as a tiebreaker within seniority groups, use it transparently and consistently.

What I will not do: disregard the list. A unilateral departure gets reversed, costs back pay, and destroys the credibility you need for the next two cycles. If the rule is wrong for this district, negotiate a memorandum for future years - but mid-crisis is the worst moment to relitigate seniority, and everyone in the room knows it.

Sequence carries more weight than wording.

1. Board first, in executive session, with the complete list, the legal analysis, and the three-year projection. No surprises, no leaks.
2. Affected staff individually, before any public meeting. Each gets the reason, the timeline, recall rights, the employee assistance program, and a named HR contact. Never a group email.
3. All staff within 24 hours of individual notices - before the newspaper. Include what is not being cut and why.
4. Families and community at the next board meeting, with the three-year projection and the specific program impact: which intervention sections survive, which class sizes rise.
5. Principals get a one-page FAQ and a script the day before, so they are not learning it from parents in the parking lot.

Content honesty: say plainly that the district has a structural gap, that this round does not close it, and what the plan is for the remainder. Staff can absorb bad news. What they cannot absorb is being surprised twice, and the second surprise is what makes the following year's budget impossible.