Editorial: Things keep breaking at UT

The University of Toledo is falling to shambles — or at least it feels that way.

From the bottom to the top, UT’s facilities department has experienced repeated, serious issues, especially in the past year.

The month of February was marked by faulty systems. Class schedules were disrupted Feb. 16 in the Center for Performing Arts and Stranahan Hall due to heating system-related issues. After freezing temperatures last week led to a water main break on Stadium Drive, facilities is yet again under the eye of scrutiny.

Recent damage continues: pipes are bursting, buildings are temporarily closing due to heating issues and the Student Union roof is leaking. It’s like UT is playing a game of Jenga, trying to see how many pieces can be pulled out before campus collapses.

Coincidentally, the recent facility issues parallel the damages almost one year ago.

Last year in January, frozen pipes in 23 buildings campus-wide caused damage to equipment, ceilings, walls and floors. Later that same month, pipes burst on the third floor of Sullivan Hall. The ensuing flood forced classes to move to other buildings until the end of the semester.

We addressed the seriousness of the issue in our February 2014 editorial titled, “Don’t neglect upkeep of buildings.” We pointed out that UT needs equipment that can last through record-setting temperatures, which are bound to happen in Northwest Ohio. We stressed that the UT community needed to discuss how this could have been avoided and how it could be avoided in the future.

As far as we know, there hasn’t been any serious conversation about how to solve these issues — and unsurprisingly, they keep happening.

In February 2014, a gas leak at the Law Center forced students to evacuate the building and all classes before 6 p.m. were canceled. Columbia Gas and Toledo Fire were called in to fix the damaged gas line, which reportedly fell on their side of the meter.

In April 2014, a sewer pipe burst in the basement of Carlson Library, causing sewer water to coat the floor. The library was forced to close for a day and a half the week before finals, and students who wanted to study suffered.

Last October, you might remember when Croutons was closed for nearly two days because of a dripping, leaking pipe. While UT maintenance assisted with cleanup, outside cleaning company Serve Pro was brought in to provide additional help.

Yet again, we wrote not one, but two editorials regarding the Croutons incident and the university’s seeming lack of transparency.

Why are there continuous facility-related problems? Take a closer look at UT’s budget — without sufficient funding, facilities cannot operate to their full potential.

Vice President for External Affairs Larry Burns announced back in May 2013 during his radio show, The Relevant University, that some of UT’s infrastructure funds would go into the academic budget. This was good for students because it kept the price of tuition down. But the effects of this decision could be tied to the maintenance of our facilities.

However, with proper upkeep, pipes shouldn’t be bursting simply because of reduced funding for two years. There may be deeper issues at play.

We are suspicious that the pipes in UT’s buildings are not being properly cared for. Common business practice says continual facility maintenance should be performed regularly rather than waiting until something breaks to take action.

Associate Vice President of Facilities and Construction Jason Toth told an IC reporter that the CPA’s Feb. 16 closure was due to a failure in the mechanical system, specifically the heat exchanger, and was “just a failure of an older piece of equipment in the facility.”

As with any older institution, there will be older equipment; the older the equipment, the greater its risk of malfunctioning. What is UT doing to ensure that these older pieces of equipment won’t break down? Each class session is worth a pretty penny, and each class canceled because of an equipment malfunction costs students money and valuable class time they can’t get back.

For the majority of these facility-related problems, the university has hired a third-party contractor for repairs or to assist with cleanup. Doesn’t this defeat the purpose of having a UT maintenance team? Hiring an outside company to do the work often costs the university more in the long run.

The employees who work in facilities are hired to maintain buildings on campus, and qualified experts should oversee continual maintenance. After all, UT is an institution that strives to provide a world-class education at an affordable cost to students — it seems reasonable that UT should invest more money into facilities to be able to effectively run the campus.

How many times do we have to write an editorial about facilities before something changes?