The best thing that could happen to the strategic planning initiative issued late last week by the University of Maine System is for lawmakers and members of the Baldacci administration to note that such a plan is overdue and that a thorough debate about it should begin. Not an endless debate – this isn’t tax reform; the university officials actually want to accomplish something – but enough of a debate so that competing ideas can be welcomed and aired, with an improved plan as a result.

The strategic plan for the system would reduce the physical holdings of the system and reduce administration. It recognizes the potential of strengthening the small universities at Fort Kent, Presque Isle and Machias by combining them with more four-year courses and graduate courses, one administration, one faculty and much of its back-shop operation centralized in the system. The same sort of consolidation would take place in Southern Maine: the university there would expand to include UMaine-Augusta and would take over running most of the system’s local centers. The University of Maine, in Orono, would get a thorough review of its offerings and would focus far more on improving the quality of its academics and research.

That the university presidents, who joined UMS trustees in creating this plan, could put aside parochial interests and serve the interests of all of Maine was commendable. That legislators already are making noises about retaliation against the system for decisions that do not favor their districts is entirely expected. The local legislative focus helped lead the system into its current condition, spread too thin with too few dollars to support its network of university campuses, centers and sites. Unless lawmakers can find another $25 million or so a year, it is a situation the system no longer can afford to maintain.

And even then, it’s clear UMS would be worse off if it took the money and maintained the status quo. It is not a strong system now, its goals are not sharply defined, the missions of its individual universities too often overlap and the campuses spend too much on duplicative administration. These are not newly found problems, but the budget crisis raises the urgency for solving them.

UMS has started a necessary debate with a strong statement about its direction over the next couple of decades. It is not the final word, but the standard for disagreeing with the plan should be to offer better alternatives. In four years, with just minimal investment in such basics as scholarships and R&D, the system expects its revenues to be $85 million short of expenditures. Reorganization alone won’t cover that gap, but it will help substantially and so should the attitude that accompanies the reform: that the system could serve Maine students better with the funding it already receives.

Most people are made uncomfortable by the idea of change or the conclusion that respected institutions as they currently stand are inadequate. That may mean giving the state several months to become accustomed to the strategic plan and amending it in some ways. But a major reform must happen if the system is to become stronger; the details of that reform are what remain to be debated.