Letting the Executive Be Executive

As a partial follow up to my previous post about the interwoven connections among the (let's call it) influencing class in Rhode Island, I note that the state's judiciary has permitted the governor to switch healthcare providers:

The state Supreme Court ruled today that the state can award the contract for its employees' health insurance to UnitedHealthcare of New England, over the objections of competitor Blue Cross & Blue Shield.

The high court said the state did not manage the bidding process as well as it could have, but still conducted it in good faith.

"We recognize the unfortunate fact that the state's officials did not handle the task of awarding the state's health care contract with the level of expertise that would be desirable," the court said in its ruling. "Any mistakes made during the process simply do not rise to the level of palpable abuse of discretion." ...

The United Contract will save Rhode Island taxpayers $25 million over the next three years, Carcieri said, and also enable Rhode Island cities and towns to save by contracting with United for the same administrative rate as the state.

While I'm glad that the executive branch secured the approval of the judiciary, in this case, trusting judges with the gauging of "abuse of discretion" in state business matters makes me a bit uneasy. Perhaps I'd feel differently if Superior Court Judge Netti Vogel could conceivably face any sort of adverse consequences from being overruled — especially since the executive branch has lost its say in the judiciary's budget.