[2630] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property Ownership
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexander J Werbos)
Tue Oct 17 11:21:21 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:20:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu>
To: Jacob Faber <jacob.faber@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <e9cc53d60610170743w33ce0a9ex15cc160f6007e552@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
Just a brief word about how I envision all this happening:
I see the creation of a process whereby one or several student groups can
petition the UA for the reallocation of materiel being used by another
student group. They would have a joint meeting with one or more UA
Facilitators, and make their case. The Facilitators would then propose a
course of action to the Senate, which would include the possibility or
reallocating the materiel in question.
This ensures:
1) The resource might actually be used more efficiently, and this is
causing people concern. Since a student group must take the initiative to make its
case to the UA, somebody has to really think they're being mistreated.
2) That the UA doesn't go nosing where it doesn't belong. Requiring a
student group to initiate the process means that someone has to need
something. It won't just be the UA messing with groups that anger it
(which I don't think would happen anyway, but some people seem to be
concerned about that).
-Alex
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Jacob Faber wrote:
> Yes, I like "ultiamtely the institute purchases it" better, but money
> wasted is money wasted. I also agree that past funding should be
> grandfathered.
>
> The question is really about how the UA enforces the "conditions" we
> agree they should attach to funding. While it can be a pain to get
> things done at times, there needs to be some accountability - of the
> student group and of the UA.
>
> On 10/17/06, John Hawkinson <jhawk@mit.edu> wrote:
>> Jacob Faber <jacob.faber@gmail.com> wrote on Tue, 17 Oct 2006
>> at 10:33:55 -0400 in <e9cc53d60610170733ie68712do6948f43607c4b77c@mail.gmail.com>:
>>
>>> Alex brings up good points. It's really about accountability. I was
>>> never on finboard, but anecdotally, I can say there is misuse of
>>> funds. Groups buy the same things year in and year out, and it's a
>>> waste of money. Also, inventory "disappears". It might be a pain,
>>> but the UA should have better records of group spending and inventory
>>> because ultimately, it's the UA who purchases it.
>>
>> The question of student group property is a complex one, but
>> certainly it is not "ultimately the UA who purchases it."
>>
>> Many student groups purchase property with non-UA (and non-GSC) funds.
>> And *most* student groups do so with a combination (sorting that out
>> would be near-impossible).
>>
>> On some level, it may be "ultimately the Institute who purchases it."
>>
>> I strongly agree with Adam, though. The UA can attach conditions to
>> money in the future (I think this is probably bad policy, but is
>> at least reasoanble), but to do so to monies issued in the past
>> is grossly insulting.
>>
>> There is already enough regluation, and it is hard enough for student
>> groups to get stuff done. Adding even more would be painful.
>>
>> --jhawk
>>
>
>
> --
> Jacob W. Faber
> Phone: 857.928.2838
> _______________________________________________
> MIT-talk mailing list
> MIT-talk@mit.edu
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
>
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
