[2674] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property Ownership
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew Lukmann)
Tue Oct 17 19:41:09 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:41:27 -0400
From: Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@mit.edu>
To: mit-talk@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610171800010.19321@white-meteo.mit.edu>
Cc: ua-senate@mit.edu, Kelsey Byers <kbyers@mit.edu>,
Adam Seering <aseering@mit.edu>, Brian Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>,
Clayton Sims <ctsims@mit.edu>, Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu>
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
Fellow Students (and alums),
I'm glad to see this vigorous discussion on mit-talk, however I think
that the discussion so far has missed a key point. The reason why there
is so much ambiguity regarding the validity of any proposed changes is
because property ownership in the existing system is so ill defined.
Right now it is patently unclear who owns the capital items that groups
purchase.
In one sense it can be stated that MIT owns all of the student group
property. However, what if a group such as The Tech or LSC were to
incorporate? Would they lose control of all of their current
possessions? What about intellectual property and archived data? Would
an incorporated Tech still own their own archived issues? If an item is
brought using UA Finboard funds, does that item belong to the group or
is it owned by the UA and entrusted to that student activity? What
happens to a group that disbands or is derecognized by the ASA?
The ASA derives it's authority from the GSC and the UA and its power is
limited to governing student groups, not funding them. As such one could
make the argument that the property of a group should default to the
respective government with which it choses to identify, (the UA for
"undergrad" groups and the GSC for "grad" groups - A group must choose
one or another for funding purposes) especially if the purchase was made
using funds from that government. Conversely, the Division of Student
Life could claim independently that since they are the source of
Institute funding for student groups that unused property should default
to them (perhaps LarryBen would like The Tech's big screen TV). These
issues lie at the core of the problem and need to be addressed before we
can continue discussing the propriety of either the UA or the GSC
establishing control over the assets of existing student groups.
Yours as always,
Andrew Lukmann
UA President
Kelsey Byers wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
