[2675] 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 19:54:31 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 19:53:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu>
To: Kelsey Byers <kbyers@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610171800010.19321@white-meteo.mit.edu>
Cc: Brian Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>, Clayton Sims <ctsims@mit.edu>,
Adam Seering <aseering@mit.edu>, mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
This looks like a solid proposal. But I still believe that we need a
process to deal with what happens in situations like the one with the
Logs. If not a formal process, then we certainly need
firmly-established guiding principles that tell us what we need to
consider when resolving these issues.
A few points:
1) I do not represent the UA in this. I speak for myself, and I will make
my own points and those expressed on the list known when the UA addresses
this issue. As I said, all of this discussion is very preliminary. I
wanted to see what the general campus sentiment was *before* the UA made
any decisions.
2) The Senate discussion session, held this coming monday in W20-400
(probably at 8 PM), is open to the MIT community. We will be discussing
this issue, as well as orientation and the TFUEC report. If you wish to
speak in person, I'd strongly suggest attendance, or speaking specifically
to your senator.
3) Andrew has a good point. The implicit underpinning of this debate is
deciding who exactly has ownership over student group property, in
various cases. Once that philosophical principle has been established, the
details follow rather easily.
-Alex
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, 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
