[2684] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property Ownership
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M Kelch)
Wed Oct 18 00:40:40 2006
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:40:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven M Kelch <kelch@mit.edu>
To: John Hawkinson <jhawk@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20061018033330.GP25828@multics.mit.edu>
Cc: mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
Your making the assumption that such a resolution would pass. The whole
purpose of putting it before Senate to make sure that its a sane
resolution. What you suggest is not feasible, and would never make it out
of the chamber.
If it did, I would likely resign my seat out of disgust.
On Tue, 17 Oct 2006, John Hawkinson wrote:
> 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
