[2647] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property Ownership
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jacob Faber)
Tue Oct 17 12:43:11 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:42:11 -0400
From: "Jacob Faber" <faber@alum.mit.edu>
To: "Waldo Szczupak" <waldo@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <000f01c6f20a$1022aae0$ef056012@wolodymyr>
Cc: Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu>, mit-talk@mit.edu
Reply-To: faber@alum.mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
So basically, you want groups to be able to request money to be used
for anything without any oversight? I don't think Alex (or anyone
really) is proposing anything insane here. There *is* embezzlement.
There *is* theft. The UA allocates a lot of money, and there needs to
be accountability. I'm not sure how Alex's simple and reasonable
request for ideas and comments on this issue exploded into a "The UA
can't touch my stuff!" shouting match.
On 10/17/06, Waldo Szczupak <waldo@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> This is a terrible idea. As the treasurer of a pretty small MIT student
> group we already have enough trouble getting a budget to go to events.
> To now be worrying if our limited equipment is going to be collectivized
> by the UA is too much.
>
> -Waldo
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mit-talk-bounces@MIT.EDU [mailto:mit-talk-bounces@MIT.EDU] On
> Behalf Of Alexander J Werbos
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:10 PM
> To: Courtney Shiley
> Cc: mit-talk@mit.edu
> Subject: Re: [Mit-talk] Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property
> Ownership
>
> > The student group system exists to serve MIT students as a whole, but
> > I think it's inappropriate to set the burden of serving all MIT
> > students on each and every individual student group.
>
> Correct. I am only proposing that if a certain resource would be better
> reallocated, some other group will help serve campus.
>
> > Has something happened to make the UA think this is a particular
> > problem that it must address, or did y'all just wake up one day and
> > think it was a great idea?
>
> As I said, there was something in the UA Senate Meeting last night.
>
> Specifically, a bill to negotiate other groups' access to the
> Logarhythms
> recording studio. Lots of Finboard money was being used to help other a
> capella groups pay rent
> to the Logs to use their recording studio, built partially with a loan
> from the UA. It was decided that this was an
> egregious waste of Finboard funds, and that a better resolution should
> occur. However, I thought that charging headlong into this idea of
> making
> a group's recording studio open for more public use was a bad idea, and
> I
> wanted to look at the general case before a specific decision was made.
> Hence, this discussion.
>
> -Alex
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
--
Jacob W. Faber
Phone: 857.928.2838
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
