[2652] 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 12:54:17 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 12:53:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu>
To: Robotica <androidqueen@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <9bde964c0610170949s3cc3ec69y812b78e73bc95be@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Waldo Szczupak <waldo@mit.edu>, faber@alum.mit.edu, mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
Because it is generally elected, holds well-advertised public meetings,
has direct channels to all undergraduates, and is maintained by
separated powers with checks and balances.
-Alex
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Robotica 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.
>
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
