The Supreme Court nullified a contract for a private company to build and operate a landfill on the Big Island. A combination of provisions in the state Constitution and state civil service law led the court to rule that state and county services "that have been customarily and historically provided by civil servants" cannot be contracted out to private companies.
Bruce Anderson, the state deputy health director for environmental health, maintains that the Supreme Court was remiss, failing to recognize the expertise needed to build and operate landfills at modern standards. People assigned to the task must be trained in such areas as chemistry, engineering and hydrogeology, he says. Untrained operators could cause disaster.
The immediate effect of the court's decision on Big Island sanitation is serious. As Anderson points out, if Hawaii County is forced to close the privately operated Pu'uanahulu landfill, all solid waste will have to be transported to Hilo. But the Hilo landfill was to be closed last year because it does not meet current standards. The Health Department gave the county a one-year, conditional extension to accept solid waste at the Hilo landfill, which could be extended for a maximum of one more year.
Anderson's argument that landfill operations under the higher standards of today are beyond the scope of services traditionally performed by state and county employees seems reasonable. But the state and counties should not be burdened with making such an argument every time a public-employee union challenges the contracting out of public services.
The high court made clear that no constitutional amendment would be required to facilitate privatization. Instead, the Legislature should rewrite the civil service laws, which now embrace "all personal services performed for each county" except those "special or unique" and those specifically exempted under other laws." Prompt and decisive action is needed to avoid a paralysis of the privatization effort.
The former Soviet satellite countries seek NATO membership as a shield against Russia. But the West tries to maintain the fiction that NATO expansion is not aimed at Moscow, which no one believes. It's a bad idea that can only create more friction and strengthen Russian suspicion of the United States and its Western allies.
Rupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor