[2700] 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 11:44:04 2006
From: jhbrown@csail.mit.edu (Jeremy H. Brown)
To: Steven M Kelch <kelch@mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:42:46 -0400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0610180534070.11985@ptolomaea.mit.edu> (Steven
M. Kelch's message of "Wed, 18 Oct 2006 05:35:01 -0400 (EDT)")
Cc: Alexander J Werbos <awerbos@mit.edu>, mit-talk@mit.edu,
senior-house@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
Steven M Kelch <kelch@MIT.EDU> writes:
> 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.
"Oopsie. Did I use my senior-house@mit.edu voice?"
> 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
