WE ASK A LOT OF STATE agency directors these days: They must either do the job they've always done with a fraction of the money they've had to do it before, or else cut back on services, with no direction from the Legislature. They must shrink their workforces, yet they have limited control over who they can get rid of.

Lawmakers aren't about to change the first problem, but a provision in the budget would let constitutional officers and Cabinet directors fire people on the two levels below them in their agencies.

The idea behind the change is sound. Directors need flexibility to bring in their own people, at least in the upper ranks. It's hardly reasonable to expect a new director to reform an agency or change its direction (which is usually why new directors are hired) or even adapt to a changing environment when the people who have to make those changes happen know they will outlast the director, as they have outlasted previous directors, and there's nothing the boss can do about it.

Most state employees want to help the agency succeed in its mission, even if that mission changes. But just one or two people who aren't about to change the way they've always done things can sabotage reforms.

We have never needed such situations in state government; we need them even less now, as agencies are forced to reduce their workforces and make strategic decisions. And unfortunately, the question is not whether we will let go of dedicated state employees; it is whether we will make the choices in a smart way that ensures we keep the best people with the most appropriate skills, or simply keep the people who have been on the payroll the longest, with little regard for ability.

But it's important to understand that while difficult times demand flexibility, they also place added burdens on state employees. They are being asked to do more work, to adapt to changes the scale of which is uncommon in government and to shoulder part of the burden of rising health care costs, and yet they are not receiving pay raises. While those of us in the private sector are experiencing many of the same strains, we have different expectations: Most state employees accepted their jobs with the understanding that they would have a fairly stable work environment.

This change would seriously disrupt that expectation for many. While we believe the disruption is justified, it should not be made without serious thought and debate. Unfortunately, it's not clear that is happening. No one can say, for example, how many people would be affected by the change. Beyond that, we have no idea whether the appropriate number of levels to go down into an organization is, in fact, three (and not two or four or five) because the proposal hasn't been studied.

And it's unlikely to be, since it's part of the budget. We have always opposed making major policy changes as part of the budget. Nothing about this proposal warrants making an exception. Indeed, if there were a need to give state agencies temporary flexibility to handle the budget next year (which is the only reason such a change should be made in the budget) you would expect it to cover all employees, rather than the relatively small number we expect are covered by this provision.

No; putting this provision in the budget strikes us as simply a way to shortcut the legislative process and push through a provision that might otherwise draw serious objections. Even though the change seems like a good idea, that doesn't justify the way it's being done. This proposal should be thoroughly debated and rise or fall on its own merits, in separate legislation.