The following is a continuation of a story which appeared in last week’s edition of The Clarkston News:

When developing a list of possible moves to balance the 2004-2005 Clarkston Community Schools budget, administrators discussed many possibilities.
‘Some things had a lot more discussion than others,? Deputy Superintendent Dave Reschke said.
The same was true for the board of education when they reviewed the list Monday, Jan. 19. A consensus was reached to seek $1.9 million in spending reductions and to use fund equity to make up for the rest of a projected $2.5 million deficit.
How to find the $1.9 million in cuts, however, generated a lot of questions and some strong opinions.
Administrators produced three ‘priority? lists with suggested cutbacks or shifts in services, based on an admitted ‘worst case scenario? of no increase in the state foundation grant and only 100 new students next year.
Reschke said the ‘Priority 1? list included line items from ‘non-instructional support? and non-required programs.
‘They’re the things we love to do for kids,? he said. ‘They’re sometimes the icing on the cake, but they’re not absolutely required.?
The ‘Priority 2? list came closer to the required list, but not quite.
‘They build a sense of longevity and quality in the district,? he said. ‘They’re very important to us, but they’re not fundamental.?
The ‘Priority 3? (which was rejected outright by the board) was an extreme, last-resort list, Reschke said. ‘We try not to cut those unless it’s absolutely necessary.?
‘These do not signify a plan that is being recommended,? Superintendent Al Roberts said, but the burden will be on the board to decide what cuts will take effect. ‘Priority I items are the ones that are, in our opinion, the farthest away from kids. There’s nothing on the list that we thought was frivolous to kids.?
‘The message is clear from the state,? Reschke said. ‘We’re going to have less money and we’re going to have fewer programs.?
Bruce Beamer, executive director for business and financial services, has often used the onion analogy, and said the past four years have involved a gradual peeling away of many services.
‘Peeling back is getting down to staff pretty quick,? Beamer said.
The administration’s ‘Priority 1? list would save a maximum projected $1.45 million, and officials said it would take at least $1.9 to reach a level to maintain funds for new building startup costs and keep enough fund equity to avoid fall cashflow problems.
The discussion, therefore, led to specific questions and observations on both Priority 1 and 2 items, including:

? Reduction in administrative costs ? ‘We have an administrative reduction here in terms of some services,? Roberts said, but he did not go into details.
There’s a long-range goal in mind, however, in light of bond-related building construction slated to be finished by fall of 2006
‘We’re going to have almost another school,? he said, referring to the realignment of grades at the current middle school buildings. While there is a need for a new administrator at each building, Roberts said they will attempt to avoid additional hires.
‘We will have to reshuffle administrators in a way to cover those needs,? he said.
? Reduction in number of teachers ? A combination of two plans is on the table (with many details to be determined) to eliminate 7.1 teachers from the K-12 lineup without issuing layoff notices.
Reschke said a realignment in some subjects and larger class sizes overall could lead to some ‘economy of scale.? He admitted some concerns, including a projection of student population growing at the high school. Some middle school teachers (depending on their certification), may have to shift to high school classes.
Officials did not indicate just how large classes may be, but they would come very close to the allowed limit.
‘If you go past that we’re going to be in such conflict with the contract and what’s right for kids that we’re just about at the limit,? Reschke said.
While that move could save the district $350,000 to $400,000, it would not be enough to make the plan work, officials said.
‘A hiring freeze, from the finance side, will not do it,? Beamer said. ‘We need to get smaller.?
Toward that end, officials are working on a proposed ‘severance? plan designed to motivate some higher seniority teachers to leave, theoretically allowing for the hire of teachers lower on the pay scale.
There are currently 27 teachers with more than 30 years experience, Beamer said, but the ‘tough question? is how much to offer for voluntary resignations, and whether enough would take advantage of the offer.
‘I don’t want to pay money to people who are already leaving,? Beamer said. ‘This is not a retirement package.?
While some agreed that the idea could save the district both in salary and health care costs, others were concerned about losing ‘master teachers.?
‘We’ve done it before, and we’ve done it successfully before,? President Karen Foyteck said. ‘The other side of me says we’re going to lose a lot of talent. That part does concern me.?
‘Have we talked about salary freezes?? asked Trustee Tony Miller.
Foyteck said it is an option, but not an easy one.
‘We would have to ask to reopen negotiations,? she said, but, ‘It’s not impossible.?
Officials noted that employee contracts for both teachers and administrators will reduce salary increases in 2004-2005 from 2 percent to 1 percent if there is a freeze in the state foundation grant.
‘We’re going to take some teachers out of the equation. We hope we don’t have to lay anyone off to do this,? Reschke said, but early layoff notice is a contract requirement so time is of the essence.
? Support staff reductions ? Roberts said the administration evaluated several options in the area of custodial services. The idea of ‘outsourcing? to an outside ‘team? moving from building to building could save up to $200,000, he said.
‘We want to be open at what the other options are at this point.?
Several trustees opposed any move toward ‘privatization,? citing previous experience in custodial services and transportation.
‘It just didn’t work,? Trustee Sheila Hughes said. ‘It would have to be a lot more than $200,000 for me to support privatization.?
‘Once they’ve got you, they’ve got you,? Miller said.
Roberts said contract terms could establish financial penalties for inadequate work.
‘We have some financial problems that require us to look at some of those options,? he said.
? Reduction in school liaison officer ? Cutting the budget for the K-8 liaison officer was a feature of the 2003-2004 budget, but cooperation with Davison Township officials led to new grants to pay the bill for the current year.
Reschke said he hopes to reimburse the township government for their extra financial help in March, but he warned of uncertain funding for the future.
‘That was a one-year fix. You never know from year to year whether you can get a grant,? Reschke said. ‘It’s going to be a public issue.?
Some suggested the need to see an activity log or similar documentation of the liaison officers? duties and actions on campus.
? Partial withdrawal from OSMTech ? A ‘Priority 2? items included reduction of support for the Oakland Science Math and Technology Academy, a popular cooperative program among northern Oakland County school districts.
If this option is chosen, Clarkston would stop sending freshmen to the program next year, effectively keeping one-half of each student’s foundation grant. Upperclassmen already involved in the program would not be affected.
‘It’s more reducing support than eliminating it,? Roberts said.
Other districts have chosen a similar course, and parents supporting the work of OSMTech are lobbying for more direct funding from Oakland Schools. Hughes said this action should move up to the ‘Priority 1? list.
‘We don’t know what Oakland Schools is going to do,? she said. ‘Because this is only going to affect freshmen, I would like to see that moved.?
Hughes suggested items such as limiting conferences and travel and elimination of the ‘zero hour? also be moved up on the priority list.
? Revenue enhancement ? In addition to cuts, administrators suggested ways to bring additional money into the budget.
Sale of portable buildings could bring some revenue, and the inclusion of out-of-district staff children could reap additional foundation grant dollars.
Roberts cautioned that the ‘limited open enrollment? idea may not be easy, since district must give permission for students to attend another district and many are protective of their foundation grants.
‘This is not a Schools of Choice program,? he said. ‘We’re not 100 percent sure we’ll meet that mark.?
Trustees seemed to agree on one thing ? the need for more details. Secretary Stephen Hyer cautioned the board against nitpicking too many Priority 1 and 2 items, leaving the number crunching to the administration.
‘I would like the administration to let us know what the full package looks like,? he said.
‘We need accurate dollar amounts,? Miller said.
Roberts said the district would continue to meet state requirements for special education and other mandates. In some cases, ‘it doesn’t mean the loss of a program, it means doing it in a different way.?
The administration is to report back to the board on their progress at the Monday, Feb. 9 meeting.