ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

26A-102148-BUS · Department of Public Safety - Student Transportation · 2025-11-24

In the Matter of:

Bertha Chezumpena

Appellant.

No. 26A-102148-BUS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: November 3, 2025

APPEARANCES: Bertha Chezumpena (Appellant) appeared on behalf of herself. Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Hughes appeared on behalf of the Department of Public Safety – Student Transportation (Department).

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Department’s Exhibits 1 through 3.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Bertha Chezumpena (Appellant) was the holder of Arizona School Bus Driver Certificate No. 36332 (Certificate) issued by the Department.

On August 8, 2025, the Department received notification from Seba Dalkai Boarding School that Appellant was involved in an accident on May 01, 2025. A water bottle rolled under the brake on the bus and gas petal, and while still driving, Appellant took her eyes off the road to reach down to the floor area. This caused the bus to go off the road and six students were injured.

Appellant did not report the incident to dispatch until May 2, 2025.

On or about August 12, 2025, the Department notified Appellant that her Arizona School Bus Driver Certificate No. 64303 been suspended or cancelled effective immediately and that he could reapply for certification after September 16, 2026.

The Department cancelled Appellant’s certificate because it found that she had violated Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R13-13-102.K.1,K.1.(a), (d), K.1.(d) and A.A.C. R13-13-104.D.3.

On or about September 8, 2025, the Department issued a Notice of Hearing setting the matter for administrative hearing on October 17, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.

At hearing, the Department presented the testimony of Kimberly Thomas, an employee of the Department. Appellant testified on her own behalf.

8. At hearing, Appellant argued that that immediately after the incident occurred, she tried to report the incident by radio, but the radio was not working. Appellant stated that after she leaves approximately 30 miles from the school, the radio does not work. Appellant also stated that her cell phone did not have a signal at the time.

9. Appellant explained that when she returned to the school the same afternoon, she did not know that the principal was on the other side of the school. Appellant stated that the custodian and door staff were the only people present. Appellant also stated that the principal does not answer her phone at night. On cross examination, Appellant affirmed that she did not try to call or report the incident on the afternoon of May 1, 2025 after she returned to the school. Appellant stated that she asked all of the children if they were okay and they all told her “yes.” Appellant did not dispute that one child sustained a scratch on her head due to the incident. Appellant did not dispute that she failed to seek medical attention.

10. The hearing record demonstrates that Appellant did not report the incident as soon as she regained reception. Appellant did not attempt to leave a voice mail message with the principal to whom she reported.

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 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

D. Other requirements:

3. 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.

E. Reports and recordkeeping:

1. Immediately following any accident involving a school bus, the school bus driver shall report the accident to the employer.

The evidence established that Appellant endangered the personal safety of children by failing to immediately report the accident and the injury to a child on her bus. Consequently, the Department established grounds under A.A.C. R13-13-102(K)(1)(a) and; A.A.C. A.A.C. R13-13-104(D)(3) and (E)(1) (d), to cancel or suspend Appellant’s Arizona School Bus Certificate.

7. The violation of Arizona Administrative Code (A.A.C.) R13-13-102.K.1, K.1. (A), (d), K.1. (D) and A.A.C. R13-13-104.D.3, constitute a failure to meet or comply with the requirements of the applicable statutes. Therefore, the Department established valid grounds under A.A.C. R17-9-102(K) (1) (a) to cancel or suspend Appellant’s Arizona School Bus Certificate.

8. 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. R17-9-102(K) (4).

9. The Department informed Appellant that she could reapply after September 16, 2026. The Department considered the seriousness of the offense. Therefore, the Department presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a one-year waiting period was appropriate.

10. Consequently, Appellant’s appeal should denied based on her violations of A.A.C. R13-13-102(K)(1)(a) and; A.A.C. A.A.C. R13-13-104(D)(3) and (E)(1) (d),

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that Appellant’s appeal is denied and Appellant’s certificate is cancelled effective immediately.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Appellant is eligible to reapply for a School Bus Driver Certificate after September 16, 2026.

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.

-54864001

001

-137160-45720000Done this day, November 24, 2025.

/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Jeffrey D. Glover, Colonel

Department of Public Safety - Student Transportation

By: OAH Staff