[2691] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Upcoming UA Issue - Student Group Property Ownership
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeremy H. Brown)
Wed Oct 18 01:52:55 2006
From: jhbrown@csail.mit.edu (Jeremy H. Brown)
To: Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 01:52:22 -0400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610170840540.22110@dodecahedron.mit.edu>
(Alexander J. Werbos's message of "Tue, 17 Oct 2006 08:58:04 -0400
(EDT)")
Cc: ua-senate@mit.edu, mit-talk@mit.edu, senior-house@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
<cruft typing, beware>
Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@MIT.EDU> writes:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> Last night, in the course of the UA Senate meeting, the issue was
> raised of who exactly owns certain student group property. While the
> UA is forming a group to address the specific situation, I believe it
> is necessary to take the time to form a general, formal policy about
> such ownership. To that end, the senate will be discussing the issue
> in a special session next week (along with a few other things).
>
> To prepare for the meeting, I want to understand the community's view
> on this issue.
>
> Who exactly owns student group property?
To be precise about it, MIT does, since (most) student groups have no
functional legal independence. I suspect a handful of the really big
ones --- LSC, WMBR maybe? --- might have some legal recognition as
distinct entities. But most student groups are really just part of
MIT.
> If it is determined (through extensive deliberation, this is not a
> deicision to make lightly) that a student group is using space or
> property inefficiently, can the UA (or agencies it has representation
> through, like the ASA) reallocate it?
First, money. Groups raise money in several ways. Some of it they
get from the UA finboard. Some they get through bake sales, ticket
sales, and donations from alums. While UA-granted money tends to be
for a specific thing, the other money may sit in the group's account
for a long time, unused. Is that "inefficient" use of the money?
What if they decide to use their earned money to throw a big party,
instead of buying xerox machines for the common good? Does anyone
*really* think the UA should be able to take money away from one group
and give it to another?
Next, property. Groups get property by spending UA-granted money,
alumni-gifted money, earned money, and through donations from
individuals and companies. If an alum gives a xerox machine to a
particular student group, and the group doesn't use it "enough", does
anyone really think the UA should be able to take that xerox machine
away and give it to a group that will use it more?
As I see it, if the UA wants to start having recall-power over
specific items, they should attach that as an explicit requirement to
each of the finboard grants. But if they start trying to reallocate
resources that groups earned or were given directly, then the UA
should burn in hell. And for any already-bought property, the UA
should leave well enough alone.
Just sayin'.
Oh, space. The ASA has, for a long time, been "in charge" of most of
the student office space and bulletin-board space, and has
periodically reallocated it. In practice, in my era, at least, all
they usually did was take office space away from defunct groups and
give it to groups that wanted space, and other such more-or-less
inoffensive changes. Even there there was often controversy, but
whatever. Every group knows that their office space is nominally lent
via the ASA; it's clear, and they should be under no illusion that
they "own" it, because it's spelled out.
> What if the student group has its own sources of income? On the one
> hand, they are making the money themselves. But on the other, would
> they have been able to earn that money without the association with
> MIT provided by the ASA?
Burn in hell, ASA, if you think you add that much value.
> We're not proposing to set up the UA/ASA in a tyranically
> micromanaging position, snatching red swingline staplers from groups
> that are being irksome.
Oh yes, yes you are. You may not intend that, but that's definitely
the consequence you'll get.
> But, rather, trying to create a process or
> policy whereby student groups that are unfairly or inefficiently using
> resources might have those resources reallocated in a way that better
> serves the common good. Or perhaps a policy that specifically says
> that this should not permissable, if that is what people want.
The latter is certainly what I'd want if I was still a student.
As an alum, I can promise you that now that the issue is raised, if
you don't put the latter property-protection policy in place, I'm
going to cut off my donations to MIT (yes, I've given them a moderate
bit of money since Chuck Vest left) and tell them that this time, it's
the UA (and the ASA, and the GSC, and etc.) fucking things up.
And if I were to start donating again in the future someday, I
certainly wouldn't give any money to student activities. What would
be the point?
> I would greatly appreciate student feedback on this issue,
> particularly before the UA discussion session on Monday the 23rd. For
> those of you that are representatives, I would ask that you consult
> your constituencies individually.
Yeah, so, I'm not a student anymore, but there you go.
Jeremy
PS Burn in hell, UA. Finboard is the only reason anyone listens to
you at all, but if you try to flex that muscle too much, you'll
lose it.
> -Alex Werbos
> UA Senator from Senior House
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
