By JIM BARON

PROVIDENCE — Gov. Donald Carcieri is mounting a constitutional challenge to a controversial law he says violates separation of powers and “impermissibly interferes” with the authority of the executive branch of government.

Carcieri has asked the state Supreme Court to issue an advisory opinion on the statute he calls “The Privatization Act,” passed last year as an article in the state budget. It sets out a process the executive branch must follow before privatizing services performed by state employees.
Carcieri claims that the law, if implemented as written, “would grind to a halt the operation of state government and the delivery of many critical services, while costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in additional costs each year.”
The specific question the governor posed to the court is: “Does newly enacted Chapter 148 of Title 42 of the Rhode Island General Laws violate article V, article VI, section 1, and article IX, sections 1, 2, and 16 of the Rhode Island Constitution in that it interferes impermissibly with the executive branch’s assigned function of administering appropriations and carrying out the day-to-day functions of the government, disrupting the Governor’s constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed?”
This is not the first time Carcieri has attacked the law. He has criticized it frequently in public statements and cited it as a key reason for vetoing the state budget last year. The legislature promptly overrode that veto.
In a letter to the high court, Carcieri said that the law “could result in the disruption of scores of critical state services and the inability of the executive branch to reduce state spending in the face of the largest state budget emergency since the credit union crisis.”
Carcieri asserts that the new law would seriously hamstring the operation of state government from a practical standpoint.  Pointing to the numerous different services already provided by outside vendors, the governor argued that this law will require the state to ultimately cease contracting in those areas, potentially creating chaos throughout state government.
“The law’s applicability to renewal of contracts threatens to paralyze the state and disrupt existing services being rendered in that many of the contracts involved are annual in nature and the long and arduous process outlined in the law will take well in excess of a year to complete,” Carcieri argued.
He says it would make it “virtually impossible to privatize any governmental services or renew contracts of existing services being rendered by private vendors,”
According to Carcieri, the state paid approximately $2.7 billion to private companies in fiscal year 2007.  Since the law applies to the renewal of existing contracts with these companies, it threatens to disrupt thousands of services now provided by private vendors. 
He specifically cited the Department of Transportation’s efforts to seek contractors to repair the Shippee Bridge in Burrillville. Carcieri told the justices that “completing the arduous process in The Privatization Act would delay the state’s ability to select a vendor to provide critical repairs to this bridge, jeopardizing the health and safety and welfare of the citizenry.” He added that other bridge and road repairs fall into the same category.
Other state functions that could be disrupted, Carcieri told the court, are medical services at the Veterans Home; claims processing for welfare benefits; substance abuse treatment services, and contracts for critical services for nurses and respiratory therapists at the Department of Mental Health, Retardation and Hospitals.
House Majority Leader Gordon Fox issued a statement saying, “The General Assembly enacted appropriate fiscal oversight legislation regarding some of the administration’s previous contracting practices. I am confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the legislation.”
Speaker Pro Tempore Charlene Lima introduced the privatization article after 11 p.m. on the night the House passed the budget.  These days, she finds it incredible that the governor “in light of the major fiscal crisis we’re facing would be questioning the constitutionality of legislation that was designed to save money for the taxpayers. It provided transparency in government.
“I don’t understand why he would be opposed to saving taxpayers money and not go through the process” described in the law. If he did that and proved he could save money by privatizing a state function, she said, “I would be standing right next to him and supporting it.”
Lima said the governor “is wasting a lot of money it is going to cost for this court case.”
Asked about the governor’s claim that the law would cost taxpayers millions, Lima retorted, “It seems like the governor’s track record shows he wasted $19 million last year and did not save taxpayers money by giving out contracts like a favor factory. I hope that he’s more concerned about saving the taxpayers money than giving out jobs to relatives of DOT and friends.”
Fox said he is not sure whether the House would be filing briefs to the court. He said it appears that Carcieri is more opposed to the practicalities of the law than its constitutionality.
But, Fox said, the governor has the right to ask for the advisory opinion. “That’s what the court is there for,” he said.