You knew the Legislature couldn’t resist involving itself in the reform of the University of Maine System, didn’t you? With money at stake, turf to be protected, loyal allies unhappy and a chance to defend programs in the home district, the attraction for lawmakers was irresistible. Maine saw that last week as state senators expressed concern, dismay, alarm as well as a few compliments about Chancellor Joe Westphal’s plan to make UMS more of a coordinated system while saving money.

Lawmakers should be involved, of course, but they should begin by recognizing why the reform exists at all. It’s the money, or lack of it, that the Legislature sends to UMS. Under the status quo, the universities will run a $25 million deficit in just a couple of years.

Tuition already is too high, but despite years of pleading with lawmakers that the state contribution was inadequate, the Legislature never paid enough attention to the cash shortage. Chancellor Westphal, understanding that he wasn’t going to get the funding he needed, has tried with the reform plan to make the system more affordable. This, apparently, irritates lawmakers.

Certainly, the chancellor did not do a perfect job of it – he should have consulted with more faculty members and others before releasing his first draft. He should have done more to emphasize the liberal arts, protect campus identity and work with the community college system. He has corrected much of that with his second draft, for which he deserves credit. And even if, as is possible, the savings he hopes for do not entirely materialize, he and other system officials have at least faced a problem lawmakers were happy to ignore.

Some of the lawmakers meeting last week were worried that their local university, especially the University of Maine at Augusta, would lose its identity under the reform plan, which would move two-year degree programs to the community colleges and give the University of Southern Maine a presence in Augusta. That’s a fair concern, but given the fact that the plan has been out for the better part of a year, all campuses have held public meetings and the system has received hundreds of public comments, simply worrying about this isn’t enough.

Interested lawmakers, at a minimum, by now should have a better alternative for a specific reform if they are going to publicly doubt the benefits of one proposed by the chancellor’s office. Their alternatives should complement and strengthen the overall reform and either save money or in some other way help the system become more financially sound.

That’s not an exceptionally high standard this far into the process, and anything less is merely making noise when the opportunity for doing that was a long time ago – say, during the last time the system went to the Legislature to ask for more money.