Rather than asking for more plans, legislators could help the jail consolidation debate by determining what information is necessary to help them and the public better decide how to rein in corrections costs. The administration can help by providing such information so that lawmakers and the public can weigh the governor’s consolidation plan against other options.

From the time the consolidation plan was announced this summer, it seemed hurried and not fully analyzed. A Department of Correction Web site, recently launched to help further debate, only highlights the shortcomings. Under a “Financial Analysis” tab, for example, is a one-page chart showing operational cost savings. This is not analysis.

The governor’s plan to have the state take over the county jails, closing four of the 15 and consolidating administration likely lacks supports because of the dearth of details more than opposition to its objectives.

Fortunately, the administration has taken several steps back and is now analyzing and discussing the plan. But, not doing this first has put the administration on the defensive, trying to build support for necessary, but unpopular changes.

Corrections Commissioner Martin Magnusson appeared before the Legislature’s Criminal Justice Committee last week to report that a more detailed study was under way. “We’re trying to gather the information to put out there in the most factual, honest, straightforward way,” he said. Based on information gathered by several teams, which are examining labor contracts, property transfers and county jail operations, a master plan will be presented to lawmakers next year.

To help guide this work, committee members should tell the commissioner what information they need to analyze that final plan. Asking questions now so that they can be answered is better than objecting to the plan later because key information was lacking. The administration can help by soliciting ideas from county officials, jail personnel and others.

By raising the issue of jail consolidation, the governor has started a necessary discussion about saving state tax dollars while improving the corrections system. Using some of the savings to offer better mental health and drug abuse services and improved facilities for female prisoners is also attractive.

Moving the discussion into the public, where it can be analyzed, criticized and improved, will lead to a better plan with more support.