East Hampton schools prepare staffing options as $2.77 million in cuts loom if override fails

East Hampton Public School Committee members heard two hours of public comment and a detailed superintendent briefing on May budget scenarios that could force major staffing decisions if a June 9 tax override fails. Speakers from classrooms and families told the committee the override is critical to preserve electives, student supports and staff positions; the superintendent laid out two fiscal scenarios and three personnel options the district could use to meet required cuts.

The most urgent issue presented was the potential scale of reductions. "If the tax override does not pass on June 9th, our district will face nearly $3 million in cuts," Walter Baker, student council president at East Hampton High School, told the committee. Superintendent Dr. Balch said the district has prepared two scenarios tied to the municipal override process: a scenario tied to a successful override that still requires additional trimming (reported in the presentation at about $922,603) and a failed‑override scenario that the transcript lists as $2,771,418 in required cuts.

Why it matters: The committee’s level‑service budget adopted in March totaled about $24.97 million; most school costs are personnel. The superintendent emphasized the district is "lean" on non‑personnel spending and that meeting either cut target will therefore force staffing changes that will affect class sizes, programs and student supports.

Public testimony was overwhelmingly in favor of the override. Alice Barber, a longtime child psychotherapist, urged the committee to consider the nonacademic supports that she said keep vulnerable students engaged: "Children who have experienced such things heal in community, not by themselves," Barber said, arguing that music, art, sports and other programs are essential to students' emotional recovery. Several teachers, paraprofessionals and students described programs they said would be at risk and implored the committee and community to pass the override.

What the superintendent proposed: Dr. Balch explained three staffing options the district will consider if cuts are needed:

- Option A: Issue non‑renewal notices to all educators with "non‑professional teaching status" (NPTS) — generally those in their first three consecutive years in the district — then issue "letters of reasonable assurance" to recall those positions if the override passes. The superintendent said about 40 NPTS educators would be affected by this step and presented it as a commonly used, legally consistent approach in Massachusetts school districts facing rapid budget reversals.

- Option B: A blended approach of targeted non‑renewals and reduction‑in‑force (RIF) decisions tied to programs; this attempts to protect high‑priority programs but is legally and administratively more complex.

- Option C: A straight RIF by seniority across positions; the superintendent said this is the most predictable contractual process in some districts but noted it could produce larger salary‑savings or preserve higher‑paid staff at the expense of lower‑cost positions.

Dr. Balch described the legal and contractual differences between NPTS non‑renewal notices, RIF processes and "letters of reasonable assurance," and said June 15 is the projected date for non‑renewal notifications for NPTS staff so affected educators could begin planning. The superintendent cautioned that some details are a moving target — enrollment and special education placements change daily — and that a number of procedural protections and grievance rights apply to RIFs for educators with professional teaching status.

Committee reaction and next steps: Committee members expressed deep reluctance about the human impact of any of the options but repeatedly described Option A as the clearest and most equitable method under severe time pressure. Several members explicitly said they preferred Option A for legal clarity and to avoid the procedural risks of a misapplied RIF. No formal committee vote on a staffing option was recorded at the meeting; the superintendent said staff would continue planning for both outcomes and present detailed budgets, staffing proposals and program impacts at the next committee meeting on May 26.

Votes at a glance: The committee approved routine and business items by roll call during the meeting. Motions recorded as carried included acceptance of consent agenda finance items and minutes of the April 28, 2026 meeting; acceptance of donations from East Hampton Savings Bank (amounts recorded in the transcript as $200 and $890); declaration of obsolete IT equipment as surplus for recycling; creation of a chapter‑44 lost book revolving account for MVS Elementary and closure/transfer of older lost book accounts; and exercising a one‑year renewal option with Durham School Services for FY27 transportation (the transcript notes a one‑year renewal with a 3% increase). Each motion was passed by roll call with members recording "I" in favor in the transcript.

What the district will decide next: The superintendent’s timeline calls for the school department to prepare two detailed budgets (override and failed‑override) for the committee’s May 26 meeting and to present those scenarios to the City Council finance committee on May 27. If the override fails on June 9, the superintendent said staff reduction totals and implementation steps would proceed with the legal timelines required by collective‑bargaining agreements; if the override passes, the district intends to issue letters of reasonable assurance to recall staff as permitted. The committee scheduled a follow‑up meeting for June 11 to act on post‑override results.

Sources: Public comment speakers and superintendent presentation to the East Hampton Public School Committee (transcript segments cited in provenance).