[2681] 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 23:34:01 2006
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:33:30 -0400
From: John Hawkinson <jhawk@mit.edu>
To: Steven M Kelch <kelch@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610172230450.23767@ptolomaea.mit.edu>
Cc: mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
Steven M Kelch <kelch@MIT.EDU> wrote on Tue, 17 Oct 2006
at 23:09:17 -0400 in <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610172230450.23767@ptolomaea.mit.edu>:
> 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.
How is it apparent that the money is "wasted"? One assumes the recipients
of the money don't see it that way.
Somehow in all of this I managed to miss the binding nature
of the arbitration in the bill passed:
...
| That the UA Senate shall freeze the account and future Finboard
| funding of any group that fails to attend this meeting; and
|
| That the facilitator shall propose a recommendation to the UA
| Senate; and
|
| That this recommendation, if approved by the UA Senate, shall be
| binding to all groups involved with the studio contract.
So, as I understand it, if the facilitator suggests that the Logs
should use their studio less and let other groups use it more, and the
UA approve the recommendation, then Logs have lost control of their
own resource (purchased with their own money, albeit a loan was
involved).
Wow.
That seems a flagrant abuse of the UA's powers to me, and I wonder how
the UA could even consider approving a bill that implies the UA has
the power to order a student activity to use its resources in a
particular way.
(I realize that this is uncomfortably intertwined with questions
of space, and that the studio is complicated because it has
both spatial and property -based components, and the spatial ones
are communal space allocated by the ASA, and the property ones
are not).
--jhawk
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
