Chapel Hill-Carrboro Board approves tiered reduction-in-force plan 4–3 after heated public comment

The Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Schools Board of Education voted 4–3 to approve a recommended reduction-in-force (RIF) plan that combines immediate central-office reductions and a longer-term attrition strategy to close a multimillion-dollar budget shortfall.

Superintendent Dr. Hamlet presented a tiered approach the administration said is necessary after enrollment dropped by about 1,000 students and the district’s fund balance declined sharply over recent years. ‘‘We are a district of approximately 11,000 students, but we’ve been staffed as if we were still more than 12,000,’’ Dr. Hamlet said during the special-called meeting as administrators described tiers 1, 2 and 3 and highlighted new slides and edits in red. The administration estimated the district must realize roughly $5.3 million to $5.6 million in savings to present a balanced budget without additional one-time county assistance.

Mr. Scott, the district finance staffer who walked the board through the financial data, said fund balance fell from about $16 million in 2021 to substantially lower levels over successive years and that the district faces a cash shortfall unless savings are found. He told the board the district had used reserves to sustain operations during the pandemic and that continued shortfalls could force more immediate personnel actions if not addressed now.

Public commenters urged the board to protect classroom supports and student-facing positions. Bridal Link, president of the Chapel Hill Carver Association of Educators, asked the board to ‘‘think differently’’ and pursue a collaborative review of contracted services rather than move quickly to personnel reductions. ‘‘Education is a people business,’’ Bridal Link said. Sam Yancey, an instructional technology facilitator at Glenwood Elementary, warned eliminating eight ITF positions ‘‘will severely undermine’’ instructional technology goals after the district invested more than $7 million in devices and infrastructure. ITF Jill Grantham of Sewell echoed that testimony, calling the role ‘‘much more than technical’’ and essential to teacher practice and student learning.

Board members debated several possible modifications, including proposals to move counselors and a pre-K mental health specialist out of immediate consideration. Some members urged delaying a vote on tier 3 so the board could gather more information; others said the district has to act now to avoid statutory consequences for failing to adopt a balanced budget. Legal counsel (identified in the meeting as Eva) reminded the board that state law requires boards to adopt balanced budgets and warned of extreme outcomes if the district cannot meet its obligations.

Administration said tier 2 would take effect immediately, focusing largely on central-office and ancillary positions (many of which are vacant) while offering affected staff reassignments where possible. Tier 3 was described as an attrition-based approach in which positions would be frozen as employees separate and allotment formulas would be adjusted the following spring; personnel impacts such as demotions or changes in pay would not be implemented until the board takes personnel action at the regular September meeting. The administration also outlined an appeals process: eligible certified or career-status employees would be entitled to hearings on Sept. 3 and 4 ahead of the personnel report at the Sept. 5 meeting.

The motion to ‘‘approve the recommended reduction-in-force plan as outlined in the abstract and attachment’’ was made and seconded and carried 4–3 on the roll call, as the chair announced at the meeting’s conclusion. The board’s approval authorizes the administration to proceed with the tiered plan and scheduled appeal dates; specifics about which individual positions will be affected and the timing of any reassignment were presented by staff and will be included in the forthcoming personnel reports and appeal materials.

What the board voted on was the plan structure and recommendations; the transcript shows administrators repeatedly emphasizing that some positions marked for reduction are vacant or will be reassigned, and that some student-facing roles were prioritized for protection where possible. Public commenters, teachers and coaches said the cuts to instructional technology facilitators, instructional coaches, counselors and mental-health supports would be difficult for classrooms and for vulnerable students. The board discussion reflected that tension: members called the choices ‘‘not comfortable’’ and repeatedly noted the human impacts while also stressing statutory and fiscal constraints.

Next steps: the administration will hold appeal hearings on Sept. 3–4 for eligible employees and place any personnel actions on the Sept. 5 personnel report. The administration and board expect to use the fiscal-year timeline and spring allotment adjustments to implement tier 3 changes over time rather than as immediate layoffs for most impacted groups.