Student Association Told of Student Parking Ticket Confusion

The Student Association’s Oversight and Appeals Commission refused to throw out three campus parking tickets, May 2, although there was confusion concerning whether or not the signs have some ambiguity about the parking restrictions.

However, in two cases, they did agree to reduce the fines to $20 in order to make the punishments less severe.

The first appeal argued that the parking sign lacked clarity on the specific parking restrictions. Instead, it only showed restrictions for the days and times one could park there rather than stating that a permit was needed to park on the lot. On the other hand, the second appeal argued that the sign did not present restrictions pertaining to the weekend, insinuating that parking restrictions were only enforced Monday through Friday. The third appeal argued that the sign was not visible. Therefore, that student was not aware that she couldn’t park on the lot.

While each of the cases arguably expresses some type of misunderstanding caused by the parking signs, the OAC members said that when parking on a campus lot, one should make themselves fully aware of any possible parking restrictions.

“I park here all the time, and the signs are pretty clear,” Chairperson Maria Lemesheva said.

The OAC meetings are scheduled as needed to review student appeals and mediation. Lemesheva, who has been employed at UW-Milwaukee for two years, called the meeting to order and ensured that each of the members, including Student Parking Appeals Commissioner Harrison Vey and Registered Student Organization Mediation Commissioner Roshi Lawrence, were present. Lemesheva later led the members into their Special/Tabled Business discussion in order to vote on the approval or denial of the appeals.

The room became silent as Vey read aloud the first of three appeals to Lemesheva, Lawrence and SA Advisor Rachel Leih, who later joined the group to sit in on the meeting. The group agreed to vote on the appeals as they were introduced.

Vey said that the first appellant misinterpreted the parking sign and argued that it was not specific enough. While the sign specified the days and times that parking was allowed, the student did not have a parking permit, so he was given a $35 ticket.

During the facilitated discussion, Vey argued that some of the parking signs do, in fact, have ambiguity and cause confusion.

On the other hand, Lemesheva said that the signs are hard to misinterpret.

“I feel that if there’s some ambiguity, then just don’t park there,” Lemesheva said.

Similarly, confusion over a sign that said “Reserved Parking Staff Requirement” led to the student getting a ticket. The sign specified that it was reserved for staff Monday through Friday from 7 a.m. until 3 p.m. However, the student said that the sign was not clear enough pertaining to Saturday and Sunday.

After parking on the lot on a Saturday afternoon, the student received a $40 ticket.

Although the sign said “Public Parking Enforced,” the student argued that the sign did not state whether or not the restrictions were enforced on the weekends.

“Again, I see the ambiguity with,” Vey said. “I can see where there’d be confusion if it doesn’t say anything about weekends.”

Vey said that he understood the difficulties students now face since all free campus parking has been taken away. As a result, Vey suggested that rather than denying the two appeals mentioned earlier, they should just reduce both tickets to $20.

Leih said that since the sign stated that public parking was enforced, then they should have to pay the ticket.

“There’s some responsibility, but there’s also room for confusion,” Vey said after being asked by Leih why he felt that they should reduce the tickets to $20 specifically.

Lastly, Vey passed around the final appeal to determine whether they should approve or deny it. The appeal stated that the student unknowingly parked in a reserved parking spot. However, the sign was not in view as she entered the lot. Instead, it was facing a different direction.

The group became puzzled while trying to decide which lot, specifically, the student was parked in. After about five minutes of looking at a campus map and still not being able to decide where the student was, the group decided that the location was not as important because regardless, they said that no matter where the person is parked, they should be aware of the parking lot regulations.

“Whether the signs are visible or not, each parking spot is individually numbered with rules on them,” Vey said. “So it should be noticeable in every lot.”

After voting on each of the appeals, Lemesheva announced that this would be the last meeting until the next academic semester due to the fact that the OAC will need to hire someone new to replace Commissioner Vey.

Vey has served on the OAC since Oct. 2015.

“My military unit has been called to active duty so I will be taking next year off of school,” Vey said. “Upon my return, I would like to continue to serve in the SA.”

After about 20 minutes of voting on the three appeals, the meeting was adjourned. OAC members returned to their office stations and proceeded with other assignments.