[2687] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property Ownership
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jonathan Wang)
Wed Oct 18 01:00:24 2006
In-Reply-To: <45356A27.201@mit.edu>
From: Jonathan Wang <jtwang@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:59:33 -0500
To: Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@mit.edu>
Cc: ua-senate@mit.edu, Kelsey Byers <kbyers@mit.edu>,
Adam Seering <aseering@mit.edu>, mit-talk@mit.edu,
Brian Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>, Clayton Sims <ctsims@mit.edu>,
Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu>
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
On Oct 17, 2006, at 6:41 PM, Andrew Lukmann wrote:
> In one sense it can be stated that MIT owns all of the student group
> property. However, what if a group such as The Tech or LSC were to
> incorporate? Would they lose control of all of their current
> possessions? What about intellectual property and archived data? Would
> an incorporated Tech still own their own archived issues?
Using your example, I certainly hope that The Tech and LSC maintain
control of all their possessions and intellectual property. I can't
speak for LSC, but I was intimately involved with The Tech for all four
years of my MIT career. Not one dime of UA money ever went to The Tech,
and it seems patently unfair for the UA to make a power grab for
property bought with funds generated only by the group and the students
who donated their time to said group.
Students working for The Tech operate what is essentially a business
(some more so than others). Any money generated by their business
activity should be wholly controlled by them and be used as they see
fit.
> If an item is brought using UA Finboard funds, does that item belong
> to the group or is it owned by the UA and entrusted to that student
> activity? What happens to a group that disbands or is derecognized by
> the ASA?
I think the model used in government makes sense here. The United
States government mails out welfare checks and food stamps. Food stamps
allow the government to dictate how recipients spend the money the
government gives them. This is a distribution in kind - the government
gives people food in the interest of public health. On the other hand,
the government also mails out welfare checks, which are wholly
discretionary - the checks become the property of the recipient to do
whatever they like with.
Similarly, the UA could, on an item by item basis, provide funds to
student groups in the interest of the public good with the restriction
that those purchases be shared by student groups on some basis.
However, general Finboard funding and student groups' generated income
should be wholly owned by those groups.
As for disbanded groups' property, the government has police/estate
auctions. Why not do the same? Derecognized groups are tougher...
there's a serious conflict of interest if their property can be
repossessed. Suppose group A has something the UA/ASA really wants.
What keeps the UA/ASA from derecognizing them for said property?
> Conversely, the Division of Student Life could claim independently
> that since they are the source of Institute funding for student groups
> that unused property should default to them (perhaps LarryBen would
> like The Tech's big screen TV).
I'm curious, how does DSL apply to income generated by student groups?
Could LarryBen actually repossess Tech property, given that it's all
paid for from advertising revenue generated by The Tech?
Jonathan
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
