$513. 

That’s the amount each UC Santa Cruz student pays in fees to Transportation and Parking Services (TAPS) each year, the highest transportation fee at any UC campus. The fees amount to nearly $10 million annually.

“We pay two-thirds of TAPS’ budget just through our student fees alone,” said Megan Amiya, co-chair of the Student Union Governance Board (SUGB). “But there’s been a collective feeling that our transportation needs have not been met.” 

In response to rising frustrations with transportation fees and service delays over the last two years, SUGB members submitted a long-anticipated measure meant to regulate TAPS at UCSC and create more student oversight. If approved by the Dean of Students, Office of the Chancellor, and the University of California Office of the President (UCOP), the measure would have appeared on the campus elections ballot to be voted upon by students. 

The Students for Empowerment and Accountability in Transportation Services (SEATS) measure, in its original form, would have altered the framework of the TAPS budget and operations. Major provisions included a student oversight board that would be responsible for approving TAPS decisions and a sunsetting clause that would allow students to roll back the TAPS budget if the board determined that TAPS resources were not being appropriately allocated. It also would have provided immediate relief for students by reducing the price of parking tickets, increasing reliable Loop Shuttle service, and reinstating 10-20 minute loading zone parking spots across campus. 

“The goal of this [measure] was to give students the bargaining power to maintain some autonomy over the student fees that we’re paying to TAPS,” said Amiya, one of the authors of the measure.

After receiving approval from UCSC administration, the measure’s appearance on the ballot was contingent on approval from UCOP.   

An answer came on April 26 in an edited document — missing substantial changes proposed in the measure. 

Their referendum would not be on the 2024 ballot, at least not in its original form. Instead, a diminished version was sent back to UCOP for approval.

“[The edits] change everything. They took out anything that said there was student oversight,” Amiya said. “It’s definitely a slap in the face […] I feel very frustrated. This goes back to why we started this in the first place; to make sure that [students] have a seat at the table and are heard.” 

The new measure still creates a student advisory commission, instead of an oversight board, which would have less direct power over TAPS policy. The commission would maintain access to all budgets, documents, and information related to TAPS operations. The sunsetting and immediate relief clauses were also removed. 

“We still wanted to push this forward because while we lose a lot of student oversight, this still gives students a lot of transparency from TAPS,” said Kyle Vergara, co-chair of SUGB. “It is not everything we hoped for, not even in the slightest, but this is a qualitative step forward.”

Ethan Davis, who graduated from UCSC in the spring of 2023, was SUGB vice-chair (2021-2022) when SUGB began the conversation about TAPS and its relationship with students.

Personal frustration with TAPS and curiosity in student opinions led former SUGB reps, including Davis, to create an opinion poll on the 2022 ballot surveying students’ satisfaction with TAPS. 

The results of the poll left little room for interpretation.

“Throughout university history there’s a constant yelling, a constant outreach, a constant critique from students going to the university and saying, ‘We would like this, we know this is needed’ but it can often take years for that to even get [considered] in the university system,” Davis said. “The student governance is working. It’s a great system. It’s the University that needs to learn to listen.” 

Section 120 of the UCSC student handbook describes student participation as vital to the objectives of University education and research. Shared governance calls for administration, faculty, and students to collaborate on the implementation of programs and policies for the University. 

“The special nature of the University requires a sense of community,” reads the policy. “While every decision may not be wholly satisfactory to all parties, the governance process should provide a forum for candid discussion.”

Despite these words, students involved in student government feel the university is failing to incorporate their promise of student participation in campus policy-making. 

“It doesn’t matter whether it’s through emails, official student bodies, letters endorsed by multiple organizations, town halls, or in person meetings, TAPS doesn’t listen to students and they’re not beholden to student voices no matter what they say,” Vergara said. “This referendum is trying to force TAPS to listen to students — not to control TAPS, but to make sure TAPS gets students’ to sign off.”