It might be easy for the Seneca Valley School Board to place much of the blame for the district’s $4.8 million budget deficit on Gov. Tom Corbett’s cost-cutting decisions, the Republican-controlled state Legislature and the commonwealth’s budget problems.

But the overly generous five-year early bird contract approved by the board and teachers union in September 2010 also is a big part of why the district is in its current financial mess.

The contract smacked of shortsightedness on the part of the board and teachers union when the two sides reached their agreement, because of the economic conditions in the state and nation at the time. Now “disastrous” is a better description of that five-year pact designed primarily to avoid employee unrest and another strike.

The contract, with raises well above the rate of inflation, is not the well-crafted document that it was depicted to be by Robert Hill, board president, on Sept. 20, 2010, when he said, “Having this vitally important agreement in place allows us to move forward with the business of education.”

What the contract has ensured is that the business of education will continue, but in a modified, scaled-back version because of money problems.

In addition, the current budget ignores the impact on taxpayers from the 2001 action by the state Legislature granting teachers a 25 percent pension increase.

That action amounts to a deferred pay raise for teachers.

Meanwhile, the district continues to endure the impact of the tax abatement approved for the big Westinghouse complex in Cranberry Township.

Westinghouse is responsible for many new jobs in the district — and the state’s income tax coffers are benefiting greatly from the company’s decision to remain in Pennsylvania. But it can’t be denied that this corporate citizen’s tax abatements have a downside as well as an upside. And, the 2012-13 Seneca Valley budget is feeling the impact of the tax concession given to the corporate giant to encourage it to relocate here.

With all that in place, the stage is set for many unpleasant decisions to eliminate the 2012-13 revenue shortfall, such as:

• A sizable tax increase for the district’s already beleaguered property owners. Under state law, the district is permitted to enact a 5.71-mill increase for the coming year that would bring in about $2.95 million.

• Elimination of teaching and administrator positions. Tracy Vitale, district superintendent, has introduced the possibility of eliminating 9.5 teacher positions in secondary education and not filling two teaching positions left vacant by retirements. She also proposed eliminating three administrator positions and not filling one left vacant by retirement.

• Elimination of paraprofessional positions, scaling back work hours, or both.

• Eliminating or curtailing student programs and increasing certain student fees, such as for athletics and parking.

Even those moves would not ensure smooth sailing for 2013-14, thanks in big part to the negative cumulative effects of the current teachers contract that won’t expire until June 30, 2016.

Vitale said on Monday that she hopes to get some concessions from the teachers union, but there is no obligation for the teachers to agree to any.

Without any movement by the teachers, the average 4.3 percent annual pay hike contained in the current contract will remain, necessitating tough budget decisions not only this year, but in the years ahead.

It’s true that no one anticipated the tough school subsidies decisions that would be forthcoming from the Corbett administration after years of generous funding from the administration of former Gov. Ed Rendell plus funds from President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus efforts. But the situation at hand, especially regarding the teachers contract, confirms how much the school board lost touch with the need to stand firm on saving money for future tough times.

That generous early bird contract — a sweetheart deal — is proving to be a bad deal for the district. It’s impact continues to be a fiscal abomination that could have been avoided if good judgment had prevailed on both sides of the negotiations table.