DOTS Appeals Process
Last summer, DOTS canceled the secondary appeals process for university traffic violations. This means ticketed drivers anywhere on the campus have exactly one opportunity to appeal their punishment. If that appeal is denied, students have only one option through the university: pay up.
The Department of Transportation Services had its reasoning. It cited a secondary appeals cost of $10,000, and we should always encourage university efforts to save money.
However, negotiations with the Office of Student Conduct, which handled such appeals, determined the cost could be reduced to $2,000.
Unfortunately, when the University Senate’s Campus Transportation Advisory Committee considered legislation to reinstate this program just before spring break, the bill was senselessly voted down. Even worse, two undergraduate students on the committee voted against it.
This denial was a stunning disappointment because the content of the proposal was so straightforward. The main arguments against it were a distrust of DOTS student workers who conduct appeals, and that the second appeals process was redundant.
If this appeals process was cut for financial reasons, then that aspect should have been the main focus when deciding whether we should bring this process back. More importantly, CTAC committee members insinuated that the reasons students want the second appeals process is because they distrust those making the decisions merely because they work for DOTS.
There is no basis for that presumption. But there are plenty of reasons why students want to appeal a second time. For example, it is very difficult to explain the ticket situation because of the online appeals process’s word limit. Those looking for appeals could feel the need to clarify because arguments could have been misunderstood.
To combat the supposed redundancy of the second appeals process, I suggested amending the legislation to give those who made an appeal a response explaining why they were denied. This seemed like the best way for students to know if they should make a second appeal.
To my dismay, the main argument against giving responses is students would take advantage of them and potentially lie to get out of a ticket. It is terrible that there is an immediate presumption that students will be dishonest. The initial rationale for denying the appeals process was that students did not trust DOTS. In reality, it seems like there is no trust in students.
Secondary appeals are about giving community members simple due process. It is time students got involved to make sure sensible proposals like this one are not ignored.
At the CTAC meeting, the reinstatement of secondary appeals failed by one vote. Of the three undergraduates on the committee, I was the only one who supported it.
Had the other two students stood with me and the rest of the student body, we would have gotten the right outcome: reinstate the second appeals process. But these students backed away and as a result, students collectively will pay thousands of dollars more in undue parking tickets.
We are fortunate to have robust opportunities to participate in shared governance at this university. Whenever you have an opportunity to vote for your peers to represent you in university governance bodies, remember the people we elect make the policies that, in not-so-subtle ways, significantly shape our university experience.
If we do not engage in our civic responsibilities as students, we run the risk of paying for it in the long run. It shouldn’t take a bad traffic ticket to reach that conclusion.
Josh Ratner is a junior government and politics major. He is the student affairs vice president for the Student Government Association.
