[2653] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property Ownership
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jessica H Lowell)
Tue Oct 17 13:01:59 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 13:01:09 -0400
From: Jessica H Lowell <jessiehl@mit.edu>
To: Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610171243030.24754@dodecahedron.mit.edu>
Cc: Adam Seering <aseering@mit.edu>, mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
The idea of the JudComms is intriguing, but there's a problem in that the the
JudComms are attached to either a living group (e.g. Senior Haus) or to a
collection of living groups (e.g. the IFC, DormCon). Perhaps there
needs to be
an ASA JudComm, or a Finboard JudComm, or something of the sort?
- Jessie
Quoting Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@MIT.EDU>:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, Adam Seering wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 17, 2006, at 12:04 PM, Alexander J Werbos wrote:
>>
>>>> Why doesn't the group in question just go to the group with the resource
>>>> and
>>>> try to work out an arrangement to share the unit equipment in question?
>>>> Reasonable people should be able to work out an agreement that's fair for
>>>> both sides, without the rather-large overhead of the UA.
>>>
>>> For the very same reason any civil society has judges. Because sometimes
>>> people
>>> just won't get along.
>>
>> Then why the UA? Judcomm would seem like the proper forum for judges, and
>> things that require them.
>
> Indeed. My thoughts over the course of the thread have drifted in that
> direction. This should be arbitrated by the Judcomms.
>
>>> I am very much speaking about the UA being an arbitrator. Just one that
>>> happens to have power at its disposal. Toothless arbitration is what wastes
>>> time and creates overhead.
>>
>> Your proposal didn't provide any provisions to help groups self-arbitrate,
>> and it gave a whole lot of teeth to the UA. Why can't (1) there be
>> some sort
>> of framework to help groups self-arbitrate, and (2) there be a set of rules
>> in place in the UA that allow the Judcomms to deal with arbitration,
>> and/or a
>> rule that gives the UA something substantially less than complete power
>> (given internal consensus) to take anything from any student group? (is (2)
>> and Judcomm a bad idea?; I'm not the most experienced in who actually does
>> what, though this seems like a job for a judicial branch, not a legislative
>> branch)
>
> To meet the end of self-srbitration, I would propose the creation of a new
> class of ASA allocation: communal property. Things that might come as a
> package, like a physical space and all the equipment contained inside it.
> That way, groups that owned such space privately could ask that it be made
> communal as a result of informal negotiation.
>
> The UA still has pretty much absolute power over the groups we control.
> With the proper vote, we can do some pretty vicious things. The point here
> is to create a formal, softer process, that involves ceding some of that
> power for general cases.
>
> And yes, you're right, this is something better reserved for the judicial
> branch.
>
>>> That would be determined by the UA facilitators. Upon consideration, this
>>> might
>>> be a great thing for the Judcomms to be used for.
>>> I don't think I *can* be more specific. Can you suggest a general,
>>> cross-spectrum standard for efficiency?
>>
>> I can't; I'm concerned that this could be a problem.
>
> I don't think it will be. We sometimes must make appeals to the
> rationality of society's judges. And, of course, through the system of
> Checks and Balances, failures there can be remedied.
>
>>>> "I don't like The Tech; I don't think it's using its office computers
>>>> efficiently. They can clearly make do with Athena-cluster computers;
>>>> there's
>>>> lots of software on Athena."
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if The Tech's actually a valid example, but hopefully you get
>>>> the idea.
>>>
>>> I think I do. Anyone would laugh that request right out of W20-400. As well
>>> they should.
>>
>> They should, of course, and probably would. But in politics, the line
>> between absurdity and reason is not always the same as the line between fair
>> and unfair; there's a really big and problematic grey area, and there's lots
>> of room for people to bias their interpretations in the name of
>> self-interest. I'm sure that the UA will generally act in the interest of
>> student groups, but there are just plain a lot of ugly edge cases that seem
>> to become possible with this type of rule. Do you see a way around that?
>
> I must there cede some confidence to Judcomms, under the constitutional
> oversight of the Senate.
>
> -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
