[2692] 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 02:20:22 2006
From: jhbrown@csail.mit.edu (Jeremy H. Brown)
To: Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 02:19:40 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87bqoatbl5.fsf@telluride.toybox.cambridge.ma.us> (Jeremy
H. Brown's message of "Wed, 18 Oct 2006 01:52:22 -0400")
Cc: ua-senate@mit.edu, mit-talk@mit.edu, senior-house@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
Post script:
The UA isn't exactly a bastion of good behavior at all times:
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V113/N56/fund.56n.html
I sure wouldn't let them be in charge of my wallet.
Jeremy
jhbrown@csail.mit.edu (Jeremy H. Brown) writes:
> <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
