[2672] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property Ownership
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kelsey Byers)
Tue Oct 17 18:12:21 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 18:11:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Kelsey Byers <kbyers@MIT.EDU>
To: Clayton Sims <ctsims@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <453530C4.1040400@mit.edu>
Cc: Brian Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>, Adam Seering <aseering@MIT.EDU>,
Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@MIT.EDU>, mit-talk@MIT.EDU
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@MIT.EDU
Here's the situation as I see it:
1. People are arguing about reallocation of group-purchased capital items
(i.e. the Logs' studio). Alex (representing the UA, unless I am
incorrect) is arguing for financial responsibility by arguing for a
judicial-based system where groups can petition to utilize another group's
property in cases where said property is lying fallow. Everyone else
(with one or two exceptions) is very concerned about the UA having this
power.
My suggestion: grandfather in the current capital items, since it's too
much of a hassle to deal with them. When groups apply to Finboard, have
them justify capital items. If a capital item looks like it will be
useful to a large portion of the student body (recording studio: yes;
mechanical printing press or lion dance costume: no), Finboard should
consider allocating money from a communal capital fund to purchase it, and
should find a communal home for it and (if applicable) funds to maintain
and/or repair it. A good example of this system might be the CAC pianos
in W20 - they're maintained by the CAC as a group resource and are
accessible by registration only.
Items requiring training (i.e. sensitive equipment in the recording
studio) should be overseen by Finboard to ensure that only trained people
use them. Student groups should get a chance to appeal Finboard's
decision with justification as to why they should get sole control over a
particular item (for example, the computers and specialized software
belonging to the Tech are used often enough by the Tech that they ought to
stay there).
Alex, this should address your concerns of efficient use of large capital
items. Everyone else - hopefully this addresses concerns of the UA
reallocating things; by purchasing items as communal to start with we
avoid those nasty hearings.
2. How does UA/UA Finboard plan to deal with the GSC and GSC's Funding
process? Most of the groups here are open to both undergrads and graduate
students, so the UA should not have sole control over any process of
equipment owned by joint undergrad-grad groups.
3. Kat made a very good point about wills back a while ago. Is there a
plan for reallocation of group equipment when a group formally dissolves?
I suggest that groups be given the opportunity to "will" their equipment.
Any unwilled equipment or items could then be put into the communal
supplies. This resolves (as Kat mentioned) the MITSFS problem; many of
the books in MITSFS don't belong to MIT (technically, as they were
donations), so allowing them to be taken by other groups (though I doubt
this would happen) is incorrect.
Thoughts, anyone?
Kelsey Byers
kbyers@mit.edu
--------------
MIT Class of 2007
Course 7 (Biology)
Random Hall Room 231
(978)460-3581
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
