Rideshare Software Developers Demand $10,000 from Pomona Student Government

Pomona's Smith Campus Center.

Pomona College’s student government, the Associated Students of Pomona College (ASPC) Senate, is facing a sudden $10,000 demand from the student software developers behind its ridesharing service. The graduating developers are asking ASPC to buy the software, after originally agreeing to develop and maintain it for $700 before passing it on to younger students. The matter has created confusion within ASPC and between the outgoing and incoming Senate leaderships, as concerns arise about a lack of planning, unclear funding mechanisms, and a potential conflict of interest.

The outgoing Senate leadership raised the issue of the software developers’ demands during the last 15 minutes of last week’s Senate meeting, the final meeting of the outgoing Senate’s tenure. Presenting in front of a slideshow, the developers asked the Senate to purchase the software or lose access for the upcoming year.

The developers valued the software at $12,000, arguing that this amount was roughly equivalent to the commission ASPC paid their previous rideshare provider. The old service operated through Connect Shuttles, providing Pomona students wholly ASPC-subsidized transportation to the Ontario and LAX airports at the beginnings and ends of academic breaks. “PICKUP,” developed by two Pomona students as part of P-ai, a Claremont Colleges-based tech incubator, matched students with one another and allowed them to book Ubers to and from the airports with ASPC footing the bill. The new platform was introduced in September of this academic year as part of ASPC’s revised “RideLink” program. 

A person familiar with the matter told the Independent that the Connect Shuttles service had cost ASPC $65-70,000 last year. ASPC meeting minutes show that the new RideLink service cost $64,000, and that the same amount was being budgeted for next year. The outgoing ASPC President told the Independent in an interview that the RideLink costs were high due to it being the first year of the program, and that process automation would lower staff labor costs in the future. The outgoing ASPC Director of Operations, who manages the RideLink program, told the Independent in a statement that the cost-per-ride  decreased substantially with the new program.

The developers have offered ASPC two pricing models: a lump sum $10,000 payment, or a $12,000 payment split between the outgoing and incoming Senate budgets. In exchange, the developers would give ASPC full ownership of the software, as well as training for future developers and operating the software for summer break departures and arrivals.

According to the Director of Operations, the developers had raised the possibility of an eventual sale in the fall semester, but it was not until after spring break that they officially told the Director they would have to sell the rights to the software. Both developers, who are graduating seniors, had been hired by technology companies that contractually forbade them from owning or working on PICKUP. 

The split payment option was given due to concerns that ASPC might not have sufficient funds in its remaining budget to pay the lump sum. The outgoing President explained to the Independent that this uncertainty was due to a number of events still being planned for the end of the year, as well as still-ongoing Club Funding hearings for next year. 

Promoting the $12,000 split option, outgoing leadership explained during last week’s meeting that the outgoing Senate would spend whatever its actual remaining unallocated budget was on the payment, with the remaining balance being paid off by the incoming Senate. The Vice-President for Academic Affairs offered to fund part of the payment out of her own budget, but the offer was declined.

The Senior Class President then motioned to allocate an undefined sum of money from any funds left over at the end of the year for the software purchase—a breach of the Senate’s usual procedures, which require allocations to be in defined amounts, according to multiple former and current ASPC senators and staff. The motion was passed, however. 

Various outgoing and incoming members of Senate who spoke to the Independent also expressed concerns about the conflict of interest between the outgoing President and the developers. One of the developers is the President’s longtime boyfriend, while the other is a close friend. The President explained to the Independent that she was aware of the appearance of impropriety and had effectively recused herself from the matter, and that all communication between the developers and ASPC had been entirely through the Director of Operations. 

Both outgoing and incoming Senators expressed concerns to the Independent about the apparent lack of effort by Senate leadership to negotiate on the purchase price. The Director of Operations told the Independent that he had estimated the value of Pickup to be $20,000 before receiving the developer’s price, and that the developers originally asked for $14,000, which he negotiated down to $12,000. The Director further explained that the developers could have sold the software to a 3rd-party for far more money, given that the software was a “high value tool” that could be used by student governments across the country.

The developers had originally signed a contract with ASPC to operate the software for a $700 license fee. Email communications obtained by the Independent from summer 2025 show that prior to signing the contract, the developers had estimated their total cost for “running and maintaining PICKUP” over the 7 months for the 2025-2026 academic year at $938, though the itemized cost breakdown does not include labor costs. The outgoing President confirmed that the developers had only been paid for “bare-bones costs” and not for labor, because they still owned the underlying intellectual property.

The President explained in the interview that if ASPC had known about the demand sooner, they would have been able to pull from fiscal reserves, which currently amount to over $500,000. The process requires at least a few week’s notice, however, which is why ASPC chose to use the budget allocation process instead. Asked why a sum was not pulled from reserves in anticipation of the request since the developers had notified the Director of Operations before Spring Break that they might need to sell the software, the President told the Independent she didn’t have an answer as she was uninvolved in the process, saying, “Great question, I want to know as well.”

ASPC meeting minutes from early April show that leadership, including the VP of Finance, were aware of the potential purchase. During the meeting, the incoming President referred to a conversation with the outgoing President about “talks on possibly buying [PICKUP]” as ASPC discussed next year’s budget. The VP of Finance acknowledged this but tabled the matter before moving on to other budget decisions. Earlier in the meeting, the VP of Finance encouraged all Senators to fully spend down their remaining budget.

According to members of both, the outgoing and incoming Senate leaderships have been in close communication over the issue. The incoming Senate is in theory not bound to the motion passed by the previous Senate, and could opt to pay the lump sum, or even decline to purchase Pickup. 

In an email statement to the Independent, the incoming Senate leadership wrote that they planned on paying the lump sum. “The current senate is confident in their EOY balance, providing funding to completely cover the purchase,” they wrote, “but in the event of insufficient funds, we would consider pulling the remaining from reserves.” Multiple outgoing Senate members who spoke to the Independent did not express the same confidence in their ability to fund the purchase with unallocated funding from this year’s budget.

A separate statement from the outgoing leadership and Director of Operations, however, noted that “No agreement has been finalized or signed,” and that “ASPC is currently evaluating whether a purchase would be appropriate and in the best interest of students.” The statement did not address the motion passed last week to allocate funding.

Responding to questions about how the incoming Senate would work to avoid similar situations in the future, the email from its leadership stated that “the nature of this situation was very particular, and [incoming Senate leadership] don’t think it will happen again.”

“We are already taking provisions against conflicts of interest to avoid personal bias in our current decision-making processes,” they continued. “We will carry this attitude forward for other decisions, and we will look into creating more formalized guidelines for situations that might include conflicting interests.”

Statements from both the outgoing and incoming leadership emphasized that whatever money was used to purchase PICKUP would not come from funding allocated for another purpose, especially club funding. 

Regardless of whatever the incoming Senate votes to do, the final decision power lies with the outgoing President and VP of Finance, who still hold signatory power for ASPC bank accounts. According to a person familiar with the matter, the handover process is lengthy and may not yet have begun. 

The incoming Senate is expected to vote on the matter during the first meeting of their tenure this Thursday, April 23. 

Only one of the developers could be reached for comment. They did not respond.