[2651] 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 12:52:59 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:52:04 -0400
From: "Jacob Faber" <faber@alum.mit.edu>
To: Robotica <androidqueen@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9bde964c0610170949s3cc3ec69y812b78e73bc95be@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Waldo Szczupak <waldo@mit.edu>, Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu>,
mit-talk@mit.edu
Reply-To: faber@alum.mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
Sigh, I wish it were, but the fact is they are/should be ultimately
responsible for the money.
On 10/17/06, Robotica <androidqueen@gmail.com> wrote:
> and the UA is more trustworthy than any other student group because?
>
> -m
>
> On 10/17/06, Jacob Faber <faber@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
>
> --
> ninjaneer. geomancer. licensed scientician.
>
--
Jacob W. Faber
Phone: 857.928.2838
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
