WHEN THE NEW FISCAL year starts today, an as-yet-unknown number of state employees will find themselves in an unusual place for government workers: They can be fired, and they can't contest it through a grievance process that effectively prevents most firings.

We are disturbed that such a dramatic shift is occurring as it is -- with little debate and, likely, without the knowledge or consent of most senators. The lack of debate and concern for details is reflected in the fact that no one has any idea how many people will be affected.

The lack of debate stems from the fact that this change was approved as part of the state budget, which allowed it to pass without the Senate ever debating it. (A Senate panel deleted the provision from the budget, but it was re-inserted during conference committee negotiations, one of hundreds of changes approved in one fell swoop.) And that adds a peculiar twist to this law: Because the Legislature has ended the disturbing practice of rewriting state law through the budget, this change will last for only one year -- unless legislators vote to continue it. That strikes us as a particularly bad idea: People should generally be able to know the conditions of their employment from year to year.

Having said all that, though, we support the idea behind the change, which eases the rules for the top three levels of management employees in agencies headed by elected officials and Cabinet officers, along with SLED and the Department of Public Safety. The sound basis for this change is that government managers need the same type of flexibility that private-sector managers take for granted to bring in the right people to accomplish their goals, and that it should be easy to replace those few people who can't or won't do the job.

The need for this is even more obvious in these difficult budget times, as agencies are being forced to do all the work they've always done with less money, and therefore less staff; they will succeed only if they are willing to make radical changes, which some workers (in the private and public sectors) are not willing to accept. The flexibility embodied in this temporary law should at least help managers make sure that when they are forced to let people go, they have some leeway to lay off less essential people, rather than simply those who don't have enough seniority.

Our guess is that we will discover in coming months that the practical effects of this change are not as monumental as many expect, that there will not be wholesale firings, that in the cases in which agency directors use this new power, they do so in a responsible way, to improve the way their departments operate.

If that happens, then the directors in the handful of affected agencies will have made a strong case for expanding this flexibility to the rest of government.

Whether that turns out to be the case or not, it's important to make the best of the situation and use the one-year lifespan of this law as a trial run, to generate information that can guide a real debate. What we learn in the coming months should lead lawmakers to do one of three things next year: pass a law to make this change permanent; make whatever changes are necessary and then pass a law to make this change permanent; or remove this language from next year's budget bill and revert to the old way of doing things. Maintaining this change in a "temporary" status, and without a proper debate, is simply no way to operate government.