ALJDEC - Licensing
24A-101618-BUS · Department of Public Safety - Student Transportation · 2024-07-23
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
In the Matter of the Cancellation of the School Bus Driver Certificate of:
Jonathan Price-Dimond
Certificate No. 62634
No. 24A-101618-BUS
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: July 8, 2024.
APPEARANCES: Appellant Jonathan Price-Dimond appeared on his own behalf. The Arizona Department of Public Safety was represented by Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Hughes who appeared via Google Meet.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Arizona Department of Public Safety Exhibits 1-16 were admitted into evidence.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Jonathan Price-Dimond (Appellant) was the holder of Arizona School Bus Driver Certificate No. 62634 (Certificate) issued by the Arizona Department of Public Safety (Department).
On or about April 29, 2024, the Department received an email from Philip Camacho who was the Director of Transportation for Peoria Unified School District, stating that he had video of Appellant DPS guidelines. Later that morning, Mr. Camacho provided a flash drive with the videos to Kimberly Thomas at the Department. Mr. Camacho then sent a follow up email to Ms. Thomas on April 30, 2024, providing some additional information.
On May 1, 2024, the Department issued a Notice of Cancellation to Appellant, which informed him of the various “Minimum Standards” violations that were found. These included, A.A.C. R13-13-102K.1, A.A.C. R13-13-102K.1(a), A.A.C. R13-13-102K.1(d), A.A.C. R13-13-104.15(d), R13-13-104.D.3, R13-13-104.D.5., R13-13-104.D.29, and R13-13-104.D.4. The letter also informed Appellant that his certificate would be cancelled through April 29, 2026, and after that date he could apply for reinstatement.
The letter also indicated that Appellant’s instructor certificate would be no longer recognized by the Department.
Later that day, Appellant emailed Ms. Thomas informing her that he would like to appeal the cancellation.
On or about June 6, 2024, the Department issued a Notice of Hearing setting a hearing on July 8, 2024, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
At hearing the Department offered the testimony of Kimberly Thomas.
Ms. Thomas was the Administrative Supervisor from the Student Transportation section of the Department.
Ms. Thomas testified that she reviewed the dozen videos supplied by Mr. Camacho, and found that there were several occasions, when students were standing in the driver’s compartment or in the aisle, which was a violation of minimum standards.
Further, Ms. Thomas testified that there were several videos on different occasions where Appellant had music playing at a railroad crossing, and not engaging his noise suppression switch to mute noises. This also was a violation of minimum standards per Ms. Thomas.
Too, Ms. Thomas testified that there were three videos of Appellant failing to stop at a stop sign, which again was a violation of minimum standards.
In addition, there was a video of Appellant leaving the driver’s compartment to help a student without Appellant first shutting down the bus. Ms. Thomas testified that this too was a violation of minimum standards.
Finally, Ms. Thomas testified that the Department takes these violations seriously to protect the safety and welfare of children.
Appellant testified that the violations cited by the Department were indeed violations, but he believed that the two year punishment imposed was excessive. Rather, Appellant believed that a 9-12 month suspension was appropriate. However, Appellant agreed to no longer train new drivers.
Further, Appellant also testified that he believed that Mr. Camacho contacted Ms. Thomas as retaliation for other HR and personnel issues between himself and Mr. Camacho.
Andrea Isler also testified for Appellant. Ms. Isler too worked for Peoria School District and after watching the videos, concurred that they were most definitely a violation of minimum standards.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Department bears the burden of persuasion. A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2).
The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence. A.A.C. R2-19-119.
A preponderance of the evidence is “evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1182 (6th ed. 1990).
A.A.C. R13-13-102 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
K. Denial, cancellation, or suspension of certificate
1. Based on an assessment of the totality of the circumstances, the Department may deny a certificate to an applicant or may cancel or suspend a certificate of a school bus driver for:
a. Failing to meet or comply with the requirements of this Article;
. . . .
d. Demonstrating behavior that endangers the educational welfare or personal safety of students, teachers, or school bus drivers or other co-workers
. . . .
A.A.C. R13-13-104.15(d) provides in pertinent part:
15. In addition to the requirements for railroad grade crossings contained in A.R.S. § 28-853, a school bus driver shall comply with the following:
...
d. While stopped at a railroad grade crossing at which traffic is not directed by a police officer, activate the noise suppression switch, completely open the service door and the window to the left of the driver and, by hearing and sight, determine that it is safe to cross. Before proceeding, close the service door. Deactivate the noise suppression switch after crossing the tracks.
R13-13-104.D provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
D. Other requirements:
...
3. While operating a school bus, a school bus driver shall wear closed-toe, closed-heel shoes that will not interfere with driving the school bus safely or performing other duties of the school bus driver. A school bus driver shall comply with all state traffic laws while operating a school bus except that the school bus driver shall not exceed 65 miles per hour or the posted speed limit, whichever is less, when operating the school bus on an interstate highway.
4. Any person boarding or attempting to board a school bus, whether or not a passenger, shall comply with all instructions given by a school bus driver. If a passenger or a non-passenger boards or attempts to board a school bus and refuses to comply with the school bus driver’s instructions, the school bus driver may seek emergency assistance to remove the passenger or non-passenger from the school bus, or prevent the passenger or non-passenger from boarding.
5. All passengers shall sit with their backs against the seat backs, their legs facing towards the front of the school bus, and all parts of their bodies clear of all aisles whenever the school bus is in motion.
...
29. Except when complying with R13-13-108(D), if a school bus driver leaves the driver’s compartment, the school bus driver shall set the parking-brake system, place a standard transmission in either first or reverse gear, place an automatic transmission in park or neutral, and turn off the ignition and remove the ignition key from an ignition that uses a key, or set the ignition power-deactivation switch of an ignition that does not use a key.
The evidence established, and Appellant conceded that he violated the above minimum standards. Consequently, the Department established grounds under A.A.C. R13.13-102K.1.(a) and (d) to cancel or suspend Appellant’s Arizona School Bus Certificate.
The Department is required to inform a school bus driver whose certificate is cancelled of the amount of time that must elapse before that driver may reapply for certification. In determining the amount of time that must elapse before reapplication, the Department shall consider: (a) the seriousness of the offense leading to the cancellation; (b) the frequency with which the offense occurred; and (c) the amount of time required to correct the offense. See A.A.C. R13-13-102K.5.
The Department informed Appellant that he could reapply after April 29, 2026. Appellant acknowledged the violations and was willing to accept a lesser suspension. Given the totality of the circumstances, the tribunal believed that the cancellation should be lessened somewhat.
Consequently, Appellant’s appeal should be granted in part.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that Appellant’s appeal be granted in part. Appellant’s certificate should be cancelled effective immediately and Appellant can reapply for certification after July 31, 2025, based on his violations of A.A.C. R13-13-102K.1.(a) and A.A.C. R13-13-102K.1.(d).
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, July 23, 2024.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Ken Hunter,
Department of Public Safety - Student Transportation
Jonathan Price-Dimond
[email redacted]
Kenneth Hughes
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff