COLUMN: Distracted by Trammell Crow

From Carl Seaquist, "Ahaan Ahim," Fall '97 From Carl Seaquist, "Ahaan Ahim," Fall '97 The University's decision to outsource facilities management has, predictably, outraged groups across campus, and rightfully terrified employees in the affected areas. After all, they are likely to bear the brunt of any cuts, since the decision to outsource was supposedly driven by economic motives. In addition, student groups have argued that principles of open, academic discussion have been violated, and they fear this action sets a precedent for the future. I wish to grant, for the sake of argument at least, all the points the administration has made so far, and assume that times are tough these days for colleges; that downsizing and outsourcing are becoming necessary in today's financial environment --- even the financial side of universities must operate now according to the standards of the business world, not by the more egalitarian standards of academe. Let us consider this decision as a business decision, and judge it accordingly. We have been told this deal will provide an economic windfall for the University, including $26 million up-front, and will help to support the newly announced initiatives to improve undergraduate life. How will it do that? There are only so many ways to save money on facilities management. The University could either become more efficient in its management methods, reduce services or cut waste. From the perspective of the number-crunchers, things like employee benefits count as waste: assuming they can get the job done by giving fewer benefits, they can provide the same services at a lower cost. I suspect the new deal will result in a loss of benefits, and perhaps pay reductions as well, at least in the long run. But let us assume the University will meet its obligations to employees and ensure that benefits remain at least at current levels. Then where will the savings come from? Probably at the cost of services. After all, with all the new building going on around campus, we all know the administration is not going to decrease the amount of facilities to be managed, so quality of service is the only place left to save money. A lot of money goes into the maintenance of the physical plant at a large institution like Penn. And most of that expense does not yield obvious returns in the short run, so it is easier to skimp here than in places like employee benefits, where there is a constituency ready to jump at any cuts. In the long run, however, proper maintenance and planning are vital. Look at SEPTA if you want an example of the long term costs of insufficient support for existing infrastructure. For that matter, look at most of Philadelphia. Or within the world of academe, look at Yale. A couple of years ago Yale did a survey of its physical plant, and learned it would take $1 billion (yes, $1 billion!) to bring its facilities up to their proper level. Again, years of mismanagement had taken their toll. Now, if the University does right by its employees and maintains the quality of existing services, it can only cut money by becoming more efficient. According to Executive Vice President John Fry, the move to outsource was driven by the need to "look outside the University for new ideas and innovative techniques" and to provide "quality and efficiency in the delivery of services" ("Trammell Crow deal makes sense," DP, 10/23/97). If the administration has been inefficient and their work has lacked the level of quality the rest of the University expects and if they have been backward-thinking and not taken advantage of new opportunities as they have arisen, then someone has not been doing his job. By outsourcing an entire department, it would appear they are simply sweeping ineptitude under the carpet, covering for a few bad administrators by endangering the jobs of over a hundred workers. Or at least that is what Fry's comments lead me to believe. No wonder they want us to think this is all being fought over tuition benefits: the other options make the administration look even worse than it already does. My theory is they thought out all their options, and decided that making an announcement after the fact -- and looking insensitive and dictatorial -- was the safest course of action available to them. This would mean that all the criticism they have been receiving so far is exactly what they expected, and even what they wanted, since it distracts attention from the real issues. I would like to hear a public statement of why it would be insufficient to fire a couple of top level administrators, or hire some outside consultants to teach the University how to incorporate "new ideas and innovative techniques" into the current system. So far, we have gotten no such explanation.