Dana Ann Burseth v. New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Student Protection, 7/11/25 (#349-25)

349-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 00518-25
Agency Dkt. No. 395-12/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Dana Ann Burseth,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Student
Protection,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) have been
reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that petitioner violated
N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28 when she failed to conduct a visual inspection of her school bus at the end of her
transportation route and, as a result, a child remained on board at the end of the route.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter and the petition of appeal
is dismissed. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29(a), petitioner’s “S” endorsement shall be suspended for six months
from the date of this decision. Respondent is directed to notify the Motor Vehicle Commission of its obligation
to suspend petitioner’s “S” endorsement, and to notify petitioner’s employer that she is ineligible during the
period of suspension for continued employment as a school bus driver.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	July 11, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	July 14, 2025
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1. Under
N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days from the date of mailing of this
decision.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
INITIAL DECISION
MOTION TO DISMISS
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00518-25
AGENCY REF. NO. 395-12/24
DANA ANN BURSETH,
Petitioner,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
OFFICE OF STUDENT PROTECTION,
Respondent.
Dana Ann Burseth, petitioner, pro se
David Kalisky, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin,
Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
Record Closed: March 26, 2025 Decided: June 9, 2025
BEFORE JEFFREY N. RABIN, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner, Dana Ann Burseth, appeals the six-month suspension as a school bus
driver imposed on her by respondent, the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE),
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00518-25
2
on December 4, 2024, for leaving a child on her bus despite her responsibility to conduct
an inspection of her bus at the end of her route.
Petitioner filed a due process petition with the NJDOE, Office of Controversies and
Disputes, on or about December 6, 2024, which was transmitted to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) and filed on January 9, 2025, as a contested matter. N.J.S.A.
52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23. Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss in Lieu
of an Answer on or about January 6, 2025. Pursuant to a telephone conference on
February 27, 2025, petitioner filed a responsive letter-brief on March 25, 2025. A
telephone conference was held on March 26, 2025, and the record closed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the petitioner’s appeal petition, respondent’s motion and brief, and
petitioner’s letter-brief, I FIND the following to be the undisputed facts:
1. Petitioner was a school bus driver for DAG Transportation, serving
Lakewood School District. On November 21, 2024, a minor student was
left on petitioner’s bus. Petitioner did not conduct a visual inspection of her
bus after completion of her bus route. Petitioner’s bus aide discovered the
child asleep on a bus seat fifteen minutes after completion of petitioner’s
bus route.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The issue is whether petitioner’s due process appeal should be summarily
dismissed.
In petitioner’s undated letter-brief received March 25, 2025, petitioner admitted to
leaving a child on her bus after completion of her bus route. She also in essence admitted
to not conducting a thorough visual inspection of the bus, stating that she “looked in my
mirror and did not see any other students so I headed home, little did I know the student
was laying flat on the seat sleeping. My bus aide made me aware after 15 minutes of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00518-25
3
leaving the last stop because he saw her foot.” Petitioner further made it clear that she
was not contesting the facts by writing, “The video footage of said incident is indisputable,
and I would not risk further penalty by attempting to perpetrate a fraud on this Court or
convince you otherwise.” In her appeal filing, petitioner stated that she “take[s] all
responsibility for [her] mistake.” (Petition, at 2.)
Petitioner did not claim that there were any genuine issues of material fact for
which a full hearing would be required. Petitioner did not challenge any of the legal
arguments made by respondent. Rather, petitioner blamed her error on driving a “spare
bus,” which was wider than her regular bus, and driving in the dark that evening, in the
rain. Petitioner asked this tribunal to consider these undocumented claims as mitigating
factors and protested that the controlling statute was flawed for not considering mitigating
factors in imposing a mandatory six-month suspension for a first violation.
Respondent properly argued, however, that petitioner failed to contest the
essential elements of the violations and failed to state a cause of action for which relief
could be granted.
Petitioner admitted to leaving a child on her bus and failing to complete a visual
inspection of the bus. She has apologized for her error, and claimed to have learned from
the experience. Petitioner downplayed the seriousness of her violation by stating that the
student was never truly left alone and was not harmed by the incident.
In comparing N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10 with R. 4:6-2(e), it is clear that the within matter
is “limited to examining the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged on the face of the
complaint.” Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989). It
is also clear that a complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim if the
complainant fails to set forth a legal basis entitling them to relief. Hoffman v. Hampshire
Labs, Inc., 405 N.J. Super. 105 (App. Div. 2009).
Petitioner did not challenge the allegations in this case: that she left a child on her
bus, and that she only glanced at her rearview mirror without conducting a full visual
inspection of her bus at the end of her route, which would have revealed a child sleeping

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00518-25
4
on the bus at the time petitioner was already heading home. The controlling statutes are
clear: N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28 requires a school bus driver to visually inspect the school bus
at the end of every route to ensure that no child remains on the bus; N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29
states that where a school bus driver has been found to have left a pupil on the bus at
the end of a route, the driver’s bus license shall be suspended for six months for a first
offense. Petitioner decried that there is a mandatory suspension for a first violation of the
controlling statute, but she provided no legal arguments for why the statute would not
apply to her or why a mandatory penalty should not apply to her when she has admitted
to the violation.
Petitioner has not challenged the constitutionality of these controlling statutes.
Further, it is the New Jersey Appellate Division, not the OAL, which is the proper venue
for a petitioner to challenge the validity of a New Jersey statute or regulation. R. 2:2-
3(a)(2). In accepting the validity of N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29, it appears clear on its surface
that a six-month penalty for a first incident of leaving a child on a bus is mandatory, by its
use of the term “shall.” There is no language set forth therein for consideration of
mitigating factors, and no consideration of whether the child left behind was in fact injured.
N.J.A.C. 6A:3-12.1 sets forth what a petitioner may challenge: whether in fact a child was
left on the bus; whether this was a second offense committed by the petitioner; whether
the child was harmed as a result of a foreseeable danger; or whether the petitioner’s
actions constituted gross negligence. However, petitioner was not charged with harming
the child in question, nor charged with a second offense or gross negligence. The only
violation petitioner was charged with was leaving a child on her bus, which she has
admitted to committing.
As petitioner has admitted to the only violation she has been charged with, and the
penalty for a first incident of leaving a child on a bus is a mandatory six-month suspension
from driving a school bus, without consideration of mitigating factors, I CONCLUDE that
there are no factual or legal issues that require a full due process hearing in this matter.
I therefore CONCLUDE that petitioner failed to state a cause of action for which relief
could be granted, and, accordingly, I CONCLUDE that respondent’s motion to dismiss
must be granted and that petitioner’s appeal must be dismissed.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00518-25
5
ORDER
Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of an Answer is hereby GRANTED, and
the within appeal is DISMISSED.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. If the Acting Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify, or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Exceptions may be filed
by email to ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of
Controversies and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton,
New Jersey 08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the
other parties.
June 9, 2025
DATE JEFFREY N. RABIN, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
JNR/cab

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00518-25
6
APPENDIX
Briefs/Exhibits
For Petitioner:
Petition of Appeal
Letter-brief received March 25, 2025
For Respondent:
Motion and Brief, dated January 6, 2025