ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

26A-102324-BUS · Department of Public Safety - Student Transportation · 2026-04-14

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of:

Miguel Villalpando

Certificate No. 65185

Appellant.

No. 26A-102324-BUS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: January 29, 2026.

APPEARANCES:

Appellant: Miguel Villalpando

Department of Public Safety: Kenneth Hughes, Assistant Attorney General

Kimberly Thomas

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Nedra-Su Kawasaki

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Department Exhibits 1-8.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Miguel Villalpando (Appellant) was the holder of Arizona School Bus Driver Certificate No. 65185 (Certificate) issued by the Arizona Department of Public Safety (Department).

On March 31, 2025, Appellant self-reported to his employer, Vail School District, that on the Saturday previous, he used his cell phone to navigate on an activity trip. On April 3, 2025, Meagan Scott, Assistant Director of Transportation for the Vail School District issued a warning letter to Appellant for violation of A.R.S. § 28-914(A)(1) and school bus minimum standards A.A.C. R13-13-104(D)(28). Ms. Scott advised Appellant that the infraction had been reported to the Department as required and any additional infraction would lead to disciplinary action including suspension or revocation of certification to drive a school bus. Thereafter, Appellant completed refresher training.

In or around late October or early November 2025, Vail Unified School District notified the Department of an incident during an activity trip in which Appellant used a Bluetooth device while driving.

On November 24, 2025, the Department issued a Notice of Cancellation (Notice) to Appellant advising that effective December 29, 2025, his Arizona School Bus Driver Certificate No. 65185 would be cancelled, and he could reapply for certification after December 29, 2026.

The Department cancelled Appellant’s certificate because it found that he had violated A.A.C. R13-13-102(K)(1), A.A.C. R13-13-102(K)(1)(a), A.A.C. R13-13-102(K)(1)(d), and A.A.C. R13-13-104(D)(28).

On November 30, 2025, Appellant requested a hearing. A Notice of Hearing was issued on December 9, 2025, setting a hearing on January 29, 2026, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, and independent agency.

At the hearing, Kimberly Thomas testified in support of the Department’s admitted exhibits. Specifically, Ms. Thomas testified that after the Notice was issued, the Department received notification that on January 16, 2026, Appellant had carefully backed up between two parked cars using his mirrors appropriately, but when pulling forward he hit a car with the rear end of the bus. However, Appellant was unaware of the collision due to the noise of the front engine of the bus. A student at the back of the bus was aware of the accident and did not report it to Appellant, but rather to a different driver.

Appellant did not dispute any material facts. He clarified that in the first incident in March 2025; at the time he used his cell phone the bus was stopped at a red light. Regarding the October 2025 incident, he stated he got turned around on a trip, relied on instinct to navigate his way out instead of asking a coach to navigate for him, and made a bad choice to use his Bluetooth device. Appellant further testified regarding the January 2026 incident that he was unaware of the incident and had he been aware, he would have notified his supervisor.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Department bears the burden of persuasion.

The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.

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.”

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:

. . . .

28. Except as provided in subsection (D)(27), a school bus driver shall not use audio headsets, earphones, earplugs, Bluetooth devices, cellular phones, personal digital assistants, or other interactive wireless devices, whether or not hands-free, while the school bus is in operation.

The evidence established, and Appellant did not dispute, that on one occasion Appellant used a cell phone while operating a school bus, even if the bus was stopped at a red light, conduct for which he was issued a warning letter and received refresher training, and on a subsequent occasion, Appellant used a Bluetooth device to navigate while operating the bus. Consequently, the Department established grounds under A.A.C. R13-13-102(K)(1)(a) and (d) and A.A.C. R13-13-104(D)(28) 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.

The Department informed Appellant that he could reapply after December 29, 2026. Although apologetic, Appellant acknowledged the violations. Therefore, the Department presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that a one-year waiting period was appropriate.

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that Appellant’s appeal be denied. Appellant’s certificate should be cancelled effective immediately and Appellant can reapply for certification after December 29, 2026, based on his violations of A.A.C. R13-13-102(K)(1)(a), A.A.C. R13-13-102(K)(1)(d), and A.A.C. R13-13-104(D)(28).

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, April 14, 2026.

/s/ Nedra-Su Kawasaki

Administrative Law Judge

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

Jeffrey D. Glover, Colonel

Department of Public Safety - Student Transportation

Arizona Department of Public Safety

[email redacted]

Miguel Villalpando

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff