[2695] 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 05:36:50 2006
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 05:35:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steven M Kelch <kelch@mit.edu>
To: "Jeremy H. Brown" <jhbrown@csail.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <877iyytabn.fsf@telluride.toybox.cambridge.ma.us>
Cc: Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu>, mit-talk@mit.edu,
senior-house@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
That was completely uncalled for. We are trying to have a legitimate
discussion and you pull up a 13 year old piece of news on a
completely different branch and function of the government, on a
completely different topic, and in a completely different context. The
money mentioned in the article doesn't come from the same source nor is it
controlled by the same body.
If you disagree then say so; that's the point of a discussion. But attacks
like 'burn in hell' contribute absolutely nothing.
I would expect adult behavior from an alum. MIT may have made you bitter
but I feel your aggressions are misplaced.
Steve
On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Jeremy H. Brown wrote:
> 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
