[2694] 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 05:22:58 2006
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 05:22:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven M Kelch <kelch@mit.edu>
To: Jonathan Wang <jtwang@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <570aa62b4e2a4522b243c3aa089436b8@mit.edu>
Cc: mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
It evolves because people are mixing two different issues here:
First; an arbiter will be set up to renegotiate use of the Log's studio.
It's possible nothing will change, but it's something that the Senate felt
was worth investigating. This came from a request by Finboard *NOT*
student groups.
The legislation passed by Senate (awaiting Presidential signature) can be
found here temporarily:
web.mit.edu/kelch/Public/38uas1-1-logs-ap.doc
Some background information:
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N15/14Logstudio.15n.html
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N22/22studio.22n.html
http://web.mit.edu/ua/www/senate/34UAC/legislation/34UAC6-4.txt
(thanks to Hans Anderson for the links)
Second; tangentially related to the first, a Senator brought up the
discussion about where 'ownership' lies of equipment bought with UA
Finboard funding because it is an interesting topic and there is no
precedent. So far (if I may be so bold to summarize) the current feeling
is that ownership lies somewhere between ASA and the group itself, but
that Senate should *not* be allowed near such negotiations. Please correct
me.
Steve
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Jonathan Wang wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2006, at 11:57 PM, Steven M Kelch wrote:
>
>> My wording sucks, its late. dont misquote me. Here's a correct summary:
>>
>> "A resolution that completely removed the studio from control of the Logs
>> would not pass. I don't understand your objection to asking them to honor
>> their agreement from 4 years ago."
>>
>> That's my final word. Sorry for the spam.
>
> How does "the UA doesn't think the Logs are honoring their agreement to share
> their studio under some (presumably) unclear terms" evolve into "the UA
> thinks it has the right to reallocate student group property as it sees fit?"
>
> I don't understand how a very specific action directed at one group allegedly
> not honoring its agreement ballooned into discussion of a potential action
> affecting all student groups at MIT. Why does the UA feel that it is
> necessary to extend this overreaching regulation? Why does it think that
> centralized control can be more effective than a free market?
>
> If I understand this right, the result will be extending the bickering of
> Finboard allocations into a yearlong process over every piece of property
> owned by any student group. Wars between student groups won't be limited to
> the amount of money each group gets budgeted at the beginning of the year,
> but can essentially be waged continually by group A trying to take group B's
> property that group A would have bought if they had been allocated more
> money.
>
> How does this help anyone?
>
>
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
