ALJDEC decisions subject to certification as final

26A-102404-BUS · Department of Public Safety - Student Transportation · 2026-06-22

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of the Suspension of the School Bus Driver Certificate of:

Othoniel Solache

Certificate No. 57197

No. 26A-102404-BUS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 1, 2026

APPEARANCES: Assistant Attorney General Kenneth Hughes represented the Arizona Department of Public Safety (Department) with Kimberly Thomas as witness. Appellant Othoniel Solache appeared on behalf of himself.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Fahd Nazir

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Department Exhibits 1 through 9 and Prehearing Memorandum admitted. Appellant Exhibits 1 through 3 admitted.

After review of the hearing record in this matter, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and issues this recommended order to the Deputy Director of the Arizona Department of Public Safety (Department).

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Student Transportation Unit (Unit) within the Department is responsible for overseeing School Bus Driver Certifications and training for the State of Arizona.

Othoniel Solache (Appellant) worked for the Liberty Elementary School District (School District) located in Pima County, Arizona, as a school bus driver. On an unknown date, the Unit issued School Bus Certificate No. 57197 to Appellant.

On March 4, 5, and 11, 2026, Appellant was alleged to have failed to perform a full pre-trip inspection. As a result, a School Bus Accident/Incident Report was completed on March 24, 2026, and the narrative stated as follows:

3/4/26, 3/5/26, 3/11/26 [Appellant] was observed by video not fully pre-tripping and falsifying pre-trip records.

The matter was forwarded to the Unit for further investigation.

On April 13, 2026, Kimberly Thomas, Administrative Supervisor, for the Unit emailed the Transportation Supervisor at the School District the following:

I spoke to [Appellant] last week for his Informal Settlement Conference for his appeal on the suspension of [Appellant’s] school bus driver certification. [Appellant] is stating that he did conduct a full pre trip, its hard to see in the video since it's a rear engine bus. Have you witnessed or have witnesses where he failed to complete a pre-trip inspection or have you not had any issues or complaints about this driver?

Do you have any additional information that may help the department make our decision if we should amend his suspension?

The Transportation Supervisor replied, as follows:

There are several other drivers that have witnessed [Appellant] not fully pre-tripping. In the video you can tell [Appellant] did not open his hood. When the bus is turned on you can see the lights on the rear engine hood when it is open. I do require all my drivers to have their video on prior to starting their pre-trip. There is a 45 second delay from the time the bus starts and the time the videos start recording. It would be very difficult to pre-trip the entire inside of the bus in 45 seconds. You can see in the video that he just walked inside of the bus. [Appellant] did not check his emergency windows or emergency equipment. The first day of [Appellant’s] absence from here his bus was brought into the shop. The mechanics stated there was no transmission fluid registering on the dipstick, the emergency door latch was broken and had to be replaced, the front door latch was broken and had to be replaced and the fire extinguisher was in the red and had to be replaced. In my opinion that tells me that it is not checked often enough when it should be checked daily.

On March 24, 2026, the Department issued a Notice of Non-Emergency Suspension (Notice) to Appellant regarding suspension of School Bus Certificate No. 57197 pursuant to Ariz. Admin. Code R13-13-102(K)(1), R13-13-102(K)(1)(a), R13-13-102(K)(1)(d), and R13-13-108(D)(1). The Notice advised that Appellant’s certification was suspended effective April 29, 2026, and that he would be able to reapply for certification after October 29, 2026. The Notice further advised as follows:

SUMMARY: The Department of Public Safety received a complaint that you were not completing pre-trip inspections before morning routes. Video footage confirmed this on March 4, 5, and 11, including missing under-the-hood checks. District records show you signed off on inspection forms, which were found to be false. These actions violate Arizona Minimum Standards.

On March 27, 2026, Appellant submitted a hearing request to the Unit. In pertinent part, the Appeal stated as follows:

I respectfully dispute the basis of the suspension regarding the allegation that pre-trip inspections, including missing under the hood checks., were not completed prior to my routes.

On or around March 27, 2026, the Department referred this matter to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), an independent state agency, for an evidentiary hearing on May 26, 2026, at 1:00PM. The Notice of Hearing issued on April 23, 2026, stated the issue to be determined was whether grounds existed to justify the Department’s appealable agency action; specifically, the suspension of Appellant’s school bus driver certificate for alleged violation(s) of Ariz. Admin. Code R13-13-102(K) or R13-13-104.

On May 26, 2026, the parties appeared for the hearing, with Appellant appearing in-person and the Department appearing virtually. However, the hearing was continued because Department’s exhibits were submitted less than seven days before the hearing and Appellant requested additional time to review the evidence against him. Accordingly, the matter was continued.

The hearing was re-convened and concluded on June 1, 2026.

Hearing Evidence

At the hearing, the Department called Administrative Supervisor Kimberly Thomas as a witness, and she testified in support of the Department’s submitted exhibits. She noted that after reviewing all the record and the school bus videos in Department Exhibits 3, 4, and 5, the determination was made to suspend Appellant’s school bus certificate. Namely, Ms. Thomas contended that the videos showed Appellant did not conduct proper pre-trip inspections on March 4, 5, and 11, 2026.

Ms. Thomas testified that Appellant was previously written up on or around September 23, 2025, for similar reasons, however, no formal disciplinary action ensued at that time, and he was cleared to return to work after refresher training. Ms. Thomas noted that the video recorded on March 10, 2025, showed a “proper pre-trip check.”

Ms. Thomas testified that, even accounting for the 45-second lag between ignition and the time the cameras in the bus came live and started recording, Appellant simply did not have enough time to perform a thorough inspection, like inspecting seats, checking windows, and opening/closing emergency exits. She added that Appellant walked away from the bus for several minutes during the inspection on at least one occasion.

Appellant disagreed that he failed to perform proper pre-trip inspections. He testified as to never falsifying any records. Regarding March 5, 2026, video not showing Appellant checking the seat cushions and/or opening the emergency exits, Appellant claimed that those items did not take more than a couple of seconds to check during a walkthrough inspection.

Appellant contended that Ms. Thomas was not a firsthand witness and the videos, because of the 45-second lag and the camera angles, failed to align with the facts. Appellant said that had he known about the 45-second lag, he simply would have delayed the interior walk through. Regarding walking away from the bus for several minutes, Appellant testified he left to go open the “heating room” for parents and guardians who were dropping off kids at the lot.

Appellant testified that he always carried out proper pre-trip inspections. He added the bus in question, Bus #54, was used for a school bus roadeo only weeks before the allegations against him, and as such, there was nothing wrong with the bus. Appellant provided written statements from co-workers corroborating his version of events and provided colored photographs of Bus #54, which showed no visible signs of leaks and/or body damage.

A total of three pre-trip inspections videos were submitted for the Tribunal’s review at the hearing: March 5, 2026; March 10, 2026; and March 11, 2026. Video dated March 5, 2026, appeared truncated at the beginning, likely due to latency in the recording process, showed Appellant making his way from the back of the bus to the front of the bus in the opening sequence. Video dated March 11, 2026, showed Appellant carrying a flashlight and physically inspecting seat cushions and conducting under-the-hood checks. Video dated March 10, 2026, which was submitted to proffer what a proper pre-trip inspection should look like, showed that Appellant was able to conduct the interior walkthrough in about 40 seconds.

Under these circumstances, given Appellant’s uncontested firsthand testimony as to the events occurring on March 4, 5, and 11, 2026, and having reviewed the documentary evidence in its entirety, the Administrative Law Judge adopts Appellant’s version of events as fact.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Department has jurisdiction over this matter.

The matter was properly brought before OAH.

In consultation with the Student Transportation Advisory Council, the Department has adopted rules to promote the safety and welfare of school bus passengers, commonly referred to as the Minimum Standards. School bus drivers must possess a certificate from the Department before they may operate a bus transporting schoolchildren.

The Department bears the burden of proof to establish discipline against Appellant’s bus driver’s certificate by a preponderance of the evidence.

“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” A preponderance of the evidence is “[t]he greater weight of the evidence, not necessarily established by the greater number of witnesses testifying to a fact but by evidence that has the most convincing force; superior evidentiary weight that, though not sufficient to free the mind wholly from all reasonable doubt, is still sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

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 drive 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.

The Department shall inform a school bus driver whose certificate is canceled or suspended of the amount of time that must elapse before the school bus driver may reapply for certification. The Department shall include this information in the notice of denial, cancellation, or suspension and the notice of final order, if any, served on the school bus driver. In determining the amount of time that must elapse before reapplication, the Department shall consider:

a. The seriousness of the offense leading to denial, cancellation, or suspension;

b. The frequency with which the offense occurred; and

c. The amount of time required to correct the offense.

Upon consideration of the hearing record, the Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Department has not sustained its burden of proof in this matter. Namely, Appellant did not engage in acts/omissions that endangered the educational welfare or personal safety of students.

The credible and relevant evidence of record did not establish that it was more likely than not that Appellant failed to conduct proper pre-trip inspections on March 4, 5, and 11, 2026. Appellant credibly testified that he performed the inspections dutifully and that there was nothing wrong with said bus. Although the Department provided substantial documentary evidence in support of its case, the evidence simply did not show that Appellant failed to complete inspections as alleged and/or falsified pre-trip reports, and, as a matter of fact, the documentary evidence corroborated Appellant’s position.

Therefore, the Department failed to meet its burden and establish that Appellant violated Ariz. Admin. Code R13-13-102(K)(1), R13-13-102(K)(1)(a), R13-13-102(K)(1)(d), and R13-13-108(D)(1).

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based upon the foregoing,

IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Department’s March 24, 2026, Notice regarding the suspension of School Bus Certificate No. 57197 be reversed.

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Department grant Appellant’s appeal to remove the six-month suspension.

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, June 22, 2026.

/s/ Fahd Nazir

Administrative Law Judge

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

Jeffrey D. Glover, Colonel

Department of Public Safety - Student Transportation

[email redacted]

Othoniel Solache

[email redacted]

Arizona Department of Public Safety

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff