[2677] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property Ownership
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Hawkinson)
Tue Oct 17 21:38:00 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:37:25 -0400
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk@mit.edu>
To: mit-talk@mit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610171944350.28537@dodecahedron.mit.edu>
<Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610171959510.31745@shahrazad.mit.edu>
<Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610171800010.19321@white-meteo.mit.edu>
<Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610171404240.24754@dodecahedron.mit.edu>
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
Replies to multiple messages follow.
I find it curious that the only people who seem to be in favor of this
proposal seem to be in student government, and that I haven't seen
people from groups advocating this kind of change (though I might be
misclassifying some people's opinions).
Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@MIT.EDU> wrote on Tue, 17 Oct 2006
at 14:13:15 -0400 in <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610171404240.24754@dodecahedron.mit.edu>:
> Your assessment of the facts is solid.
Then this sounds very much like a solution in search of a problem.
The instant case we have is the Logs are actively using their studio,
and some people don't like the way they are sharing, because other a
capella groups gave up resources to permit the Logs to get their
space, but didn't make sufficiently strong agreements that gave them
the access they needed in the future (this is my rough understanding;
is it wrong?).
As such, this is not about taking away unused property from groups, or
about future major tens-of-thousand-dollar purchases.
I think it would be a serious error to try to extrapolate a
significant policy shift from this one case. There are much smaller
instruments that can be used to address the a capella situation.
Incidently, I'm extremely troubled that the UA apparently has, and is
willing to use, the power to freeze student group's finboard accounts,
in order to ask those groups to come to arbitration. If groups want to
arbitrate, sure. If they refuse to arbitrate, perhaps something is in
order. But I haven't heard of any such refusal, just an extremely
strong stick applied. I would like to think that a stick like that
would only be used in extreme cases, and not lightly.
I'd like to know how the UA even has the power to freeze Finboard
accounts.
Kelsey Byers <kbyers@MIT.EDU> wrote on Tue, 17 Oct 2006
at 18:11:39 -0400 in <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610171800010.19321@white-meteo.mit.edu>:
> 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),
Err, I don't understand this metric. I expect multiple student groups
would want access to a printing press.
In many cases, groups put a lot of effort into capital items, and
a lot of effort and upkeep and man-hours are required. I don't think
clear that we'd be better off with those resources being centralized,
simply because the item is capital.
I concede that in some cases it might be the case. But even in
the instant case--that of the recording studio--the problem is that
demand outstrips resources. Is the UA going to say, "No, you can't
buy a $10,000 printing press for yourself, you need to buy a $20,000
printing press for yourself and 4 other groups?"
That seems fundamentally unworkable.
> Items requiring training (i.e. sensitive equipment in the recording
> studio) should be overseen by Finboard to ensure that only trained people
This seems utterly doomful. Finboard as an enforcement arm?
> 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?
There isn't, but I don't think there needs to be, or should be.
It happens on a case-by-case basis, and that's mostly OK.
Trying to legislate it precisely would be quite hard.
Christina B Hawkes <riv@MIT.EDU> wrote on Tue, 17 Oct 2006
at 20:01:33 -0400 in <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610171959510.31745@shahrazad.mit.edu>:
> > Right now it is patently unclear who owns the capital items that groups
> > purchase.
>
> I find it a bit strange that this isn't legally spelled out anywhere.
> What do various legal/financial officials around the institute have to say
> on the current policies?
It's not clear that it is advantageous to pursue an answer to this
question too strongly. Legally speaking, MIT owns capital items purchased
with MIT funds. Who within MIT? That's a much harder call, and if you
forced someone to come up with a policy, it might be awkward and unpleasant.
The status quo is that student groups are the owners. Maybe the UA wants
to change this (unclear). It is not apparent that they have the power.
Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@MIT.EDU> wrote on Tue, 17 Oct 2006
at 19:53:40 -0400 in <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610171944350.28537@dodecahedron.mit.edu>:
> 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.
It does not seem apparent to me that making any changes is a good idea.
There is a serious price to pay for adding regulation. It is already
far too difficult to spend and use Institute money for student groups,
and more regulation is a serious mis-step, in my view.
It's important to give students room to make mistakes, and learn,
even if it costs some money.
It also strikes me that the ASA should be involved in formation of
a proposal like this, and that discussion of this topic at their
General Body Meeting on Nov 1 might be timely and appropriate.
--jhawk
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
