Opinion ID: 2612884
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Privatization and the Merit Clause

Text: We proceed to the substance of Moore's claim. Because Moore raises a question of law requiring interpretation of the Alaska Constitution, we review the trial court's ruling independently and adopt the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy. Guin v. Ha, 591 P.2d 1281, 1284 n. 6 (Alaska 1979). Article XII, section 6 of the Alaska Constitution commands the legislature to establish a system under which the merit principle will govern the employment of persons by the State. As Delegate Sundborg noted during the Alaska Constitutional Convention, the principal policy reason for adopting this provision was to ensure that state employees would be hired and retained on the basis of their merits rather than on the basis of their politics. 4 Proceedings of the Alaska Constitutional Convention (PACC) 2887-88 (Jan. 23, 1956). Delegate Sundborg went on to add: The converse of the merit principle is the spoils system, and anyone who doesn't want to have a merit principle ... must, I think, be in favor of a spoils system. Id. at 2888. Recently, in Alaska Pub. Employees Ass'n v. State, 831 P.2d 1245 (Alaska 1992), this court emphasized the broad and complex nature of the constitutionally mandated merit principle: Generally defined, the merit principle requires the recruitment, selection, and advancement of public employees under conditions of political neutrality, equal opportunity, and competition on the basis of merit and competence. In actual practice, however, the merit principle is more complex and ambiguous than the above definition reveals. Id. at 1249 (citations omitted). The Alaska legislature adopted the State Personnel Act (AS 39.25.010-.220) for the express purpose of defining and implementing the merit principle. Id. The Act's provisions strongly suggest that the merit principle extends not only to the process of selecting and retaining individual state workers, but also to the process of creating and eliminating state jobs. The Act's opening provision, which defines the merit principle, [2] expressly recognizes the need to keep partisan politics from playing a role in the elimination of either state workers or their jobs. Thus, AS 39.25.010(b) includes within the ambit of the merit principle retention of employees with permanent status on the basis of the adequacy of their performance ..., AS 39.25.010(b)(3), as well as selection and retention of an employee's position secure from political influences, AS 39.25.010(b)(5). The Personnel Act's inclusion of state jobs as well as state workers within the ambit of the Alaska Constitution's merit system language is hardly surprising in light of the merit principle's overriding objective of eliminating the spoils system of government: History, both recent and distant, show[s] that reductions in force and administrative reorganization have been used as a means of circumventing employee protections. R. Vaughn, Principles of Civil Service Law [hereinafter Vaughn] § 4.4, at 4-25 (Matthew Bender 1976). Standing alone, however, the mere conclusion that the merit principle applies to the state's relations with public workers and jobs alike tells us little, for it begs the crucial question: What does the merit principle allow, and what does it forbid, regarding the elimination of jobs, as opposed to the termination of individual workers? This question is susceptible to no ready answer; its resolution requires the balancing of competing factors. On one hand, we must not lose sight of the merit principle's basic goal of insulating the state workforce from political influence. On the other hand, we must bear in mind that the basic function of state government is to govern, not to employ; and to govern effectively, the state must govern efficiently. The potential for conflict between the merit principle and need for governmental efficiency was apparent to the drafters of the Alaska Constitution when they considered the language of the merit system provision; they made it clear that the merit principle was not intended to impede the efficient management of state affairs. For example, in advocating language making implementation of the merit principle mandatory, Delegate Sundborg expressed his desire that Alaska's government service be one in which all of the people who are working are people with ability and people who are entitled to hold the positions they have on the basis of their merits rather than on the basis of their politics. 4 PACC 2888 (Jan. 23, 1956) (Comments of Delegate Sundborg). At the same time, however, Delegate Sundborg assured the convention that [a] man isn't frozen into his job permanently just because he is hired under a merit system. Id. at 2894. The premise that the merit principle does not bind the government to retain a workforce it cannot afford has long been established: The authority of government to separate employees for economic reasons is widely accepted. The necessity for this authority is apparent if the government is faced with financial or organizational difficulties. Vaughn, § 4.4, at 4-16. Thus, government agencies functioning under various forms of the merit system have traditionally been accorded broad latitude to eliminate jobs for economic, as opposed to political reasons: Perhaps the greatest discretion which the agency exercises is the ability to determine whether or not a reduction-in-force is to take place. [United States Civil Service] Commission regulations state: Only the agency can decide what positions are required, where they are to be located, and when they are to be filled, abolished, or vacated. Id. at 4-19 (footnote omitted). In keeping with this approach, the State Personnel Act broadly authorizes Alaska's personnel board to adopt rules providing for layoffs for reason of lack of money or work, abolition of positions, or material changes in duty or organization[.] AS 39.25.150(13). Personnel rules adopted under the authority of the Act set forth elaborate provisions to mitigate the impact of layoff orders on affected state workers but leave intact the broad power of agencies to decide when layoffs should be ordered and what positions should be eliminated. [3] In relevant part, the rules allow agencies to lay off an employee in the classified service if ... the employee's position is abolished, if there is a shortage of work or money, or for other reasons outside the employee's control. 2 AAC 07.405(a). We think it clear, then, that the merit principle, as expressed in article XII, section 6 of the Alaska Constitution, ordinarily allows state agencies broad discretion to eliminate positions and order layoffs for reasons of efficiency and economy, provided that their decisions are not politically motivated. The remaining issue for decision here is whether a different, more restrictive rule is constitutionally compelled in the specific context of privatization, when the decision to cut spending by ordering layoffs is accompanied by a plan to enter into lower-cost private contracts for the same services. Other jurisdictions addressing the relationship between privatization and the merit principle are divided: some conclude that the merit principle neither bars nor restricts agency discretion to privatize; [4] others express reservations concerning the compatibility of privatization and the merit principle, at least in the absence of detailed regulations specifying the circumstances under which existing jobs may be eliminated in favor of private sector contracts. [5] The differences reflected in the case law may be explained to some extent by the variety of factual circumstances courts have considered and by the peculiarities of the statutory and constitutional schemes within which each case has arisen and been decided. To a larger extent, however, these differences simply reflect the divergent judicial views that different courts have brought to a genuinely close and difficult issue  an issue that necessitates the resolution of competing policies: Privatization of government services has significant policy implications for the state personnel system. Privatization can provide important benefits by reducing costs and increasing governmental efficiency and productivity. See Note, Civil Service Restrictions on Contracting out by State Agencies, 55 Wash.L.Rev. 419, 424-26 (1980). See generally R. Cass, Privatization: Politics, Law, and Theory, 71 Marq. L.Rev. 449 (1988). On the other hand, privatization operates as a labor policy in that it affects the qualifications and conditions of employment of persons who will perform services for the government. See Becker, With Whose Hands: Privatization, Public Employment and Democracy, 6 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 88 (1988). Colorado Ass'n of Pub. Employees v. Department of Highways, 809 P.2d 988, 994 (Colo. 1991). Considering these policies in light of the underlying purposes of the merit system and in light of the traditional discretion accorded governmental agencies to determine the need for reductions in force, we are not convinced that the Alaska Constitution's merit system provision should be construed as a categorical bar to privatization. Nothing in the Personnel Act or the Public Employment Relations Act, AS 23.40.070.260, restricts the state from reducing its workforce and laying off personnel for reasons of economy. More specifically, neither act prohibits state agencies from resorting to privatization as a cost-cutting measure. In addition, the State Procurement Code, AS 36.30.005-.995, vests the executive branch with broad authority to enter into contracts for services and professional services; [6] no provision of the Procurement Code bars privatization. Under the laws and regulations currently in force, there appears to be relatively little danger that privatization could successfully be used as a device for subverting the merit principle's primary goal of shielding state workers and jobs from political influence. As we have previously noted, state personnel rules that deal with layoffs offer protection against political influence by ensuring that state workers who are potential targets of layoff are treated fairly and that the effects of any actual layoff are mitigated. Furthermore, the State Procurement Code establishes extensive control over agency contracting procedures. These measures are calculated to ensure that the State accords fair treatment to persons and businesses seeking to enter into state contracts. Moore nevertheless argues that privatization could be used as a means of subverting state policies relating to worker qualifications, conditions of employment, and benefits. He points to numerous statutory provisions that confer rights and benefits on state workers. [7] Moore argues that, since private contractors will be under no obligation to afford their workers the same benefits, privatization violates public policy by allowing the State to avoid costs of employment that it should properly bear. To a limited extent, this argument provides legitimate cause for concern. There is at least some danger that privatizing state jobs can be used as a means of circumventing policies relating to qualifications and conditions of employment. [8] In our view, however, the potential danger to the merit system appears relatively slight. While the social costs of privatizing the state workforce might justify legislative scrutiny, and while situations requiring judicial intervention on a case-by-case basis may arise from time to time, the risk that privatization poses to the merit system does not warrant the somewhat drastic measure of declaring it constitutionally barred. Establishing qualifications and conditions of employment to ensure a stable and experienced body of civil service workers is unquestionably among the varied goals of the merit principle. But in terms of the principle's constitutional purpose, this goal is secondary to the principle's primary objective of securing state workers against the evils of the spoils system. As we have already mentioned, to the extent that privatization creates a risk of exposing state workers to political influence, that risk is largely obviated by provisions of the State Personnel Act and state personnel rules dealing with layoffs and by provisions of the State Procurement Code and the rules promulgated thereunder dealing with state contracts. Furthermore, while various state statutes and regulations dealing with qualifications, conditions of employment, and benefits for state workers are certainly meant to further the merit principle, it is not the goal of these provisions to establish minimum standards of employment for general, statewide application. Statewide labor standards and benefits are extensively dealt with under Title 23 of the Alaska Statutes, [9] as well as under Title 36, which establishes specific standards applicable to public contracts. [10] Provided that a state contract for services meets the requirements of the Procurement Code and complies with applicable statewide standards, as well as with specific standards applicable to public contracts, we fail to see how the contract could be deemed to violate public policy. Finally, any risk arising from privatization must be balanced against the countervailing dangers of an unduly rigid reading of the Constitution's merit system language  a reading that could well extend the merit system provision beyond its originally intended scope. [11] In this regard, it is worthwhile recalling Delegate Sundborg's assurance that state workers would not be frozen into [their] job[s] permanently just because [they were] hired under a merit system. 4 PACC 2894 (Jan. 23, 1956) (Comments of Delegate Sundborg). In short, neither the political nor the social danger of privatization appears so threatening to the merit principle as to justify reading a categorical bar against privatization into the Alaska Constitution's merit system provision. To the extent such dangers prove real, we are confident that existing contractual, administrative, and judicial channels for case-by-case review of agency action will be capable of enforcing the merit principle and of providing redress to aggrieved employees. [12]