State legislators rejected a promising streamline of welfare services statewide that would have saved $8 million a year, but the Lingle administration should not give up. Scaled-back legislation instead allows a pilot program on Oahu to go forward—and the administration should find a way to do so, despite barriers.

Gov. Linda Lingle wanted the plan to be approved statewide, patterned after a successful modernization of Florida's system, which received nationwide praise. The Legislature overrode her veto of the bill, which limited the revamp to Oahu and then required public hearings before its startup.

Lingle indicated that her administration would go forward with the Oahu streamlining; in her veto message, she wrote that it would “;provide easier access to the application and renewal process for residents on Oahu only, which is not fair to those living on the neighbor islands.”;

However, Lillian Koller, Lingle's human services director, now says the new law's requirement for hearings, rule making and union consultation effectively killed the plans.

The union consultation would be confrontational regardless of the limitation to Oahu. In the Florida plan, staff cuts included layoffs of employees with the lowest scores in areas such as performance, discipline history and job function capabilities, which would raise the ire of public employees in Hawaii.

The white-collar Hawaii Government Employees Association has opposed the streamlining, which would involve the laying off of 228 workers and closing of 31 statewide offices. More than 7,000 employees and welfare recipients signed a petition opposing the plan.

Rep. John Mizuno, chairman of the House Human Services Committee, said the homeless, disabled and needy often don't have access to a phone or computer needed to contact the new welfare processing center. However, in Florida, Mathematica Policy Research Inc. found “;little evidence”; that changes in the system “;have limited access for specific types of clients.”;

If it had reduced access, it added, “;we would expect the elderly, non-English speakers and the disabled to be affected the most. This does not appear to be the case.”;

Said Mizuno: “;We're not against being more efficient and cutting costs, but the way they did this was ill-advised. We're ecstatic to hear it's over.”;

Taxpayers and human services recipients should not be so ecstatic—and it should not be “;over.”; The streamline process involving more transparency and input should move forward to allay unfounded fears. The Florida modernization has proven efficient in cutting costs by 36 percent and satisfactory to clients, whose average interview times with staffers was reduced from one hour to 15 minutes, according to Mathematica Policy Research Inc.

Lingle is right in attributing rejection of the streamlining to “;the special interests of the public employee labor union.”;

The administration would serve the state's interest by going forward with hearings to put those facts on the public record. Slogging through the system is never easy, but vindication with success is a worthwhile goal.