This year APPA formalized its strategic partnership with the Association of College and University Housing Officers International (ACUHO-I), whose annual meeting was held at the University of British Columbia in July. At this meeting, Lander Medlin, APPA's executive vice president; Gray Thompson, assistant director of facilities at NC State; Allen Chouinard, manager of housing services at Penn State; and I delivered a day-long "college" or seminar on facility condition auditing. This relatively dry subject was eagerly absorbed by the ACUHO-I audience. In fact, it is clear that the membership of this housing organization is increasingly interested in "all things facilities."

The association has established a committee committed exclusively to facilities issues. During the conference, more than ten of the technical education sessions had some relevance to facilities. This is a very friendly and conscientious association. After spending a whole day with a large group of housing officers in a classroom, we couldn't help but get to know each other better. One of the more interesting subjects that came up was the often tenuous relationship between the residence life department and the physical plant. At Lander's suggestion, the group stuck around after the college and held an impromptu forum on this professional relationship. I took copious notes and was amazed by the highly charged commentaries that were presented.

If you have ever attended one of my seminars or have read this column, you know that I preach the sometimes lost art of communication to the APPA membership. As good as APPA professionals are at technical skills and facility stewardship, they are poor at communicating their mission to the rest of the institution. The housing officers present reinforced this theme tenfold.

Housing officers, like many other members of the non-facilities management community, have professional respect for facilities officers. Most express appreciation for the complex tasks undertaken by the plant staff. Where this relationship suffers is from a lack of mutual understanding of the actionable elements of the partnership. For example, Jim Fitzsimmons, associate vice president for student affairs at Temple University, revealed that his housing office pays a significant portion of its annual budget to the physical plant. However, those charges are based on work orders with a chargeback and overhead rate that has no meaning for him or his staff. They are asked to pay a bill that they don't understand. When anyone has to pay a bill that he or she doesn't understand, they become frustrated.

The bills may be confusing, but the procedures can become confusing too. Gary Thompson of NC State is frustrated when he and his staff must issue multiple work orders for work that is very small and adjacent to each other. In the past, he has struggled with the apparent waste created when a new work order and visit is initiated for a leaking sink that is adjacent to a commode that is being serviced. "Why can't they fix it while they are already there?" A little empathy allows one to understand why it is frustrating for the housing officers when they encounter these situations. We know that the time and material tracking functions of any good computerized maintenance management system requires frequent generation of new work orders, but is the housing director provided with an explanation of this requirement? More importantly, is there a mutual understanding that could take place that meets the needs of both parties?

As the impromptu forum progressed, it became clear that a lack of effective communication was at the core of any difficulties with the professional relationship. There are a number of critical understanding that must occur for the relationship to work. Without good communication, none of the critical elements can ever be shared. For example, Dana Kelly, assistant director of housing for Boise State, said that the housing department eventually created its own maintenance department because the central plant and her colleagues could never communicate their unique missions to each other. "We separated because of different priorities—what was an emergency to us was not always an emergency to the physical plant."

While discussing this point, Kelly used a term from the seminar to make a point. What we in APPA refer to as "sister component damage" has relevance to housing officers as well, but in a different situation. To physical plant staff, some deferred maintenance projects caused collateral damage to other systems. This takes place over weeks, months, and years. At Boise State, the housing officers see un-completed maintenance causing collateral damage immediately. "If a broken door, window, or other item is not serviced quickly, the kids often vandalize it out of anger and the repair bill doubles and triples." This is collateral damage to her department. This misunderstanding is starting to erode now. She and the physical plant director, John Holman, are meeting regularly to work through these issues and others. They are sharing maintenance responsibilities now as well.

The physical plant has many customers and at least as many competing priorities as any single department within the institution. Physical plant officers understand how to operate in a world of multiple priorities. They do it every day. It seems that what is required is a better sensitivity to the priorities specific to resident life. As Ross Fraser, director of university residence halls for Columbia University put it: "It comes down to reaching an understanding of the residence-life mission in the context of maintenance. The physical plant and residence life departments have different, but compatible priorities." It is important that an increased communication of priorities and missions goes both ways. And Gary Falasca, director of facilities services of Lehigh University, stated: "It can be difficult to be sensitive to the needs of the residence life department when they don't seem to care about their facilities. Professional respect in both directions is a minimum to makes this relationship work."

In the forum, a number of participants proudly expressed that the relationship does work at their institutions. In fact, of those that had a successful partnership, many similarities where revealed. From a communications standpoint, it is clear that consistent, planned, predictable, and organized planning sessions for both parties are a must. Many meet formally each week, but most met at least monthly. During these meetings, shared, conflicting, and new priorities are discussed and managed. At Northern Arizona University, Stacy Klippenstein, assistant director of housing, characterized their weekly meetings as "extremely open." "Our building coordinators met with the trades supervisors and mutually decide what work can be completed and when. If we are unrealistic in our requests they it is openly discussed. We fund trade positions in each of the shops so we don't have conflicted priorities." Communicating priorities becomes much easier when potential funding conflicts are reduced by partnerships similar to Northern Arizona's.

Most successful partnerships are developed over a period of years. However, the progress made in the relationship has to be cumulative each year, not reinvented. At the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Wayne Kuncl of the housing department describes his institution's method of solidifying the partnership through the use of a Memorandum of Understanding or MOUs. An MOU is not a legally binding document but is more formal than a handshake. The physical plant and the residence life departments use this contract-style agreement to specify the specific expectations and services of the partnership.

At UNC Chapel Hill, like Northern Arizona, the residence life department directly funds positions within the physical plant. This includes a nearly complete service structure from a manager of residence life maintenance through supervisors and trade staff devoted to maintenance of the residence life facilities. Once again, there are very few disputes over money. There is a budget submitted by the physical plant and approved by the residence life management each year. The funding is agreed upon and is no longer an issue during the year. The physical plant is not concerned with charge-backs to generate money to cover costs. This greatly relieves the pressures created by competing budget priorities typical of other arrangements. The semi-formal agreement embodied by the MOU establishes the basic foundation of the service relationship.

Bruce Runberg, associate vice chancellor of facilities services, states that "the MOU establishes common goals that enable teamwork to take place." With the basic details clearly spelled out in a written document, the parties are free to spend time on more pressing day-to-day priorities and issues. The basics are in place so they can move forward in more productive activities. The different but compatible priorities have been handled up front. More time is created to achieve results.

It was clear from the input provided at the ACUHO-I conference that the interest in facilities by residence life officers is on the rise. There is a genuine interest in this profession to better understand the nature of facility stewardship. The first and best way for residence life officers to increase awareness of facility issues is through their respective physical plant departments. To do this, mutual respect and effective communication is required. Any policy or procedure like the MOUs that can enhance and formalize interdepartmental communications and understanding should be utilized. Lane Miller of Clemson said it best at the end of the forum: "Ultimately, this professional partnership is dependent on effective personal relationships."