[2690] 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 01:20:04 2006
In-Reply-To: <4535B84E.9010703@mit.edu>
From: Jonathan Wang <jtwang@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 00:19:11 -0500
To: Andrew Lukmann <lukymann@mit.edu>
Cc: mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
I see. The MIT policy on this makes incorporating prohibitively costly,
see http://web.mit.edu/slp/money/outside.shtml
Incidentally, that page also contains this:
Student organizations that are recognized by MIT are given the autonomy
and responsibility to spend their funds as the organization sees fit
(providing they do not break Institute policy).
In my reading, at least, this seems to quite clearly delegate full
ownership of property purchased by student groups to those groups.
On Oct 18, 2006, at 12:14 AM, Andrew Lukmann wrote:
> John,
>
> In the case of The Tech or LSC incorporating, I wasn't claiming that
> their property would default to the UA, but rather to MIT itself as a
> corporate entity. There is certainly a strong legal argument to be
> made since all ASA-recognized student groups, undergraduate or
> graduate, are simply arms of the Institute that any work done or
> property acquired on their behalf can be claimed as property of MIT
> (even if the group purchased the item using non-Institute funds). I
> was simply suggesting that understanding that concept can help to
> illuminate other issues like what happens when a student group is
> derecognized or whether the UA can claim that capital purchases made
> using Finance Board funds can be restricted or reallocated by the UA.
> These are all very interesting questions (with little precedence)
> worthy of debate.
>
> -Andrew L.
> UAP
>
> Jonathan Wang wrote:
>> 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
