[2679] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property Ownership
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M Kelch)
Tue Oct 17 23:09:50 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:09:17 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven M Kelch <kelch@mit.edu>
To: John Hawkinson <jhawk@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20061018013725.GA20547@portnoy.mit.edu>
Cc: mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
Some things to think about/clarifications:
Any proposal would be clear to identify only capital assets purchased
specifically with Senate or Finboard money (*which is the same thing but a
different process*) from a line item approved by Senate by student groups
that are classified as 'undergraduate'. What student groups buy with their
own fundraising or from their general purpose operations funds (stapler
anyone?) is untouchable. Period. This money was either not given to the
group by the UA, OR it was given by the UA *without restrictions*. Capital
purchases, in contrast, are approved conditionally through line items and
are conditional on helping that group better serve the MIT undergraduate
community.
If something is even partially funded by the UA, restrictions on the items
use may be imposed to ensure fairness (since the money is *everyone's*
money). The proposal Alex is trying to put together may help determine the
consequences for breaking those restrictions.
The UA Senate is the primary controller of all Finboard allocated student
group funds. It states this in the UA Constitution. Since the student
groups defer to ASA, and ASA defers to UA (on undergraduate issues),
undergraduate student groups are bound to this clause when they agree to
become ASA recognized. So this is where the UA gets the "power" to freeze
Finboard distributed funds. Student groups agree to this power when they
agree to be governed by the ASA.
This issue is one of abstraction. Student groups get their money from
Finboard. Finboard gets it from the UA. UA gets it from DSL. DSL gets it
from MIT. MIT gets it from the student life fee which is.. you guessed
it.. from the students who make up student groups. The question Alex put
forth is where in this infinite loop is the most significant or useful
place to bestow some power to ensure appropriate and fair use.
Currently, the power is in the hands of the individual student groups.
This segments the communal money. One argument is that by putting the
power one level of abstraction up, in the hands of the ASA or UA, there is
better oversight and better efficiency. But in turn we would be taking
power away from the people who ultimately fund the groups. This is the
tradeoff that we should be debating.
The Logs studio is a different case than the above. The legislation that
granted them the loan to build the studio stipulated that it would only be
given if the Logs agreed to allow the other groups adequete studio time,
because the studio would reduce the other group's space. Everyone agreed.
The legislation that was just passed asks them to renegotiate that social
contract. Currently groups are spending Finboard money for recording time.
This is a waste of Finboard (read: student) money because the resources
and the mechanism (the studio and the contract) are already in place to
get this for significantly less money. By stipulating that the Finboard
accounts will be frozen, then it forces positive action. No more money can
be wasted needlessly because either an agreement will be reached or the
money won't be there to waste.
Many people engaging in this discussion seem to have a fundamental
misunderstanding of the money trail and the basic structure of their
student government. If you are confused about something, emailing
ua@mit.edu will likely get you a good answer.
Don't misconstrue starting a debate over a topic with supporting that
topic. The UA in no way advocates this proposal, at least not yet. It was
brought up with the intent of starting a discussion, but some people have
become defensive. Don't do that.
Carry on,
Steve Kelch
UA Senate Speaker
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, John Hawkinson wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
