The distress from Maine’s congressional delegation over the Navy’s actions in preparation for pulling out of Cutler Communications and Telecommunications Station highlights a flawed process that serves neither the military nor base communities well. The flaws demand that the process be reviewed for Cutler and elsewhere.

The Navy is supposed to be deciding, first, whether service members should continue to be stationed at Cutler and, second, whether the civilian functions there should continue to be carried out by the union employees or contracted to a private firm. The delegation objects to the Navy’s decision to move control of some of its operations to Norfolk, Va., while it was in the middle of assessing the base’s activities; it believes the Navy failed to include a number of work functions in describing the operations; and concludes the union was unfairly excluded from the Navy’s development of a management plan for Cutler.

As important, the delegation recently presented Navy Secretary Richard Danzig with a more general question that deserves a thorough answer. Sen. Olympia Snowe, chairman of the of the Armed services Subcommittee on Seapower, calculated that of 168 similar base assessments, just 30 involved withdrawal of more military personnel than Cutler, and only four of the 47 studies begun with Cutler’s will be rushed to completion this year. What makes tiny Cutler such an immediate object of the Navy knife?

The senator’s question is not mere home boosterism. In previous base-closing operations, economic impact on the local community was a major factor supposed to be taken into consideration. The Cutler station is the second-largest employer in Washington County. If the 109 service members disappear and the number of union jobs is reduced significantly by privatizing, the impact on one of the state’s poorest counties will be severe. Given that Cutler’s communications mission is recognized as essential and its reliability rating among the highest possible, the Navy’s action seems precipitous.

It seems, in fact, predetermined, as if the assessment Cutler is now undergoing is a formality the Navy is walking through in order to do what it intended to do from the beginning. If that is the case, military preparedness is not served well, and the community that has supported the station is being deceived.

The delegation’s protests over the process at Cutler are well-placed, and not just to protect Cutler. Affected communities usually are scrupulous to assure the military has followed the rules for closure and need to believe the system is fair to retain confidence in it. The Cutler experience makes matters worse. Unless Secretary Danzig changes the current process at Cutler, the Senate’s Armed Services Committee should investigate the matter further.