[2685] 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 00:47:56 2006
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:47:01 -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
ugh, let me clarify that last email.
I meant if there was a resolution to take complete control away from the
Logs, that would be bad.
jhawk, you seem to be forgetting that the initial condition on the loan,
which was agreed to by the Logs, was that they would get the loan only if
they allowed other groups to use the space. The purpose of the arbitration
is to determine if that agreement is being upheld.
You are quick to criticize us for not holding people accountable, and then
when we do you seem to turn it around and say we are abusing our power...
Could you please extrapolate on how you would like this to be resolved,
keeping in mind how the Logs agreed to allow student participation and
that this participation has not been adequate?
Steve
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
