Luis A. Salcedo v. New Jersey Department of Education, Office of School Bus Safety, 6/25/26 (#226-26)

226-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 02297-26
Agency Dkt. No. 038-02-26
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Luis A. Salcedo,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education, Office of School Bus
Safety,
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 he failed to conduct a visual inspection of his school bus at the end of his 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 he 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: 	June 25, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	June 25, 2026
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
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02297-26
AGENCY DKT. NO. 382-02-26
LUIS A. SALCEDO,
Petitioner,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION OFFICE OF SCHOOL
BUS SAFETY.
Respondent.
______________________________
Luis A. Salcedo, Petitioner, pro se
David L. Kalisky, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent (Jennifer Davenport,
Attorney General of New Jersey, attorneys)
BEFORE ERNEST M. BONGIOVANNI, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On February 6, 2026, Luis A. Salcedo, (petitioner/Salcedo) filed an administrative
hearing request contesting the findings of the New Jersey Department of Education,
Officer of School Bus Safety (OSBS) that on January 23, 2026, a child was left on the
school bus to Salcedo was assigned. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28 et. Seq. required that
Salcedo, 	as 	a 	school 	bus 	driver, 	conduct 	a 	visual 	inspection 	at 	the 	end 	of 	his

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02297-26
2
transportation Route to assure no pupil has been left on his bus. 	As a result of his
failure to do so that day, his school bus “S’ endorsement be suspended for a period of
six (6) months.
As the result of petitioner’s appeal, the imposition of the suspension has been
stayed pending the outcome of the hearing at the OAL.
Salcedo asked for Emergent relief. 	After a hearing, said relief was denied to
Salcedo by Order dated February 19, 2026. 	On or about April 5, 2026, the OSBS filed
this motion for summary decision. This Court accepted Salcedo’s late filed opposition to
the motion on May 12, 2026. 	For the reasons which shall follow, I grant the requested
summary decision.
UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
First, Salcedo’s filing (despite it being defective as not supported by any certified
to facts) admits he did not follow the law and the agency’s policy by failing to personally
inspect the bus for children at the end of his route, instead “[R]]elying solely on the bus
aide’s word. This was a mistake petitioner takes responsibility for it.” Page 2, Salcedo’s
Opposition to Motion.
Further, Salcedo admits the penalty of a six-month suspension was justified. 	In
his words:
Petitioner does not dispute that regardless of the post-trip
inspection performed1 at the parking lot, he [Salcedo]
should have personally inspected the bus before leaving
the school…[.] Petitioner accepts responsibility for that
lapse 	and 	accepts 	the 	six-month 	suspension 	of 	his
school bus endorsement as the statutory consequence.
Ibid
It is therefore undisputed, as argued by the OSBS in its motion, that Salcedo and
undoubtably without excuse violated his statutory duty. Further, Salcedo does not argue
1 Salcedo claims his aide performed an inspection

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02297-26
3
that the penalty is unduly punitive, an abuse of discretion or otherwise unlawful or
unjust. 	In the Emergent hearing Salcedo had argued that his acknowledgment that his
failure to follow his statutory duty ensured he would correct himself in the future and that
no harm had come to the child 	during the time -twenty minutes- while the child was
unsupervised (as her presence on the bus was unknown to Salcedo or his aide before
she was discovered on the bus in the parking lot). 	He apparently has abandoned that
position and agrees the imposition of a six-month suspension is correct.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
If there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, a moving party is entitled to
prevail on a motion for summary disposition as a matter of law. 	Brill v. The Guardian
Life Insurance Co. of America, 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995). 	The purpose of summary
decision is to avoid unnecessary hearings and their concomitant burden on public
resources. Under the Brill standard, a fact-finding hearing should be avoided “when the
evidence is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Id.
As indicated in the decision denying Emergent Relief, the personal inspection by
the bus driver to check for children remaining on the school bus after the drop off is
mandatory and the penalty, fortunately, in my opinion, does not require that any harm
befall the child in order to make an affirmative finding of the failure to follow the
inspection requirement nor does a promise to do better in the future negate the need for
the penalty. 	The only issue truly presented in this case was whether the pupil or child
was left on the school bus at the end of his route, which is plainly obvious and admitted
by the driver Salcedo.
In fact, Salcedo simply asks that the penalty of six months suspension be
imposed retroactively. 	I find I have no such authority to do so as the penalty is
mandatory. 	Further it would seem unjust to impose it “retroactively” as the suspension
was stayed during the time of the appeal. 	Regardless of whether Salcedo was not
employed by any school since the incident, it is not this court’s province to deem when
the suspension is served. 	Finally, Salcedo has provided no reason for his unusual

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02297-26
4
request. Economic hardship is no claim, when, as here, the penalty period is mandatory
and is silent as to exceptions made for such hardship caused by its imposition.
diver
As noted by the moving papers in this motion, the penalty for a first offense by
the bus driver of a six-month suspension of a bus driver’s ”S” endorsement to his
license is mandatory. 	Accordingly, and for the reasons and undisputed facts as set
forth, I CONCLUDE as a matter of undisputed fact and law that the decision of the
agency must be upheld.
ORDER
For the reasons set forth above, the motion for summary disposition filed by the
respondent, the New Jersey Department of Education, Office of School Bus Safety
(OSBS), is hereby GRANTED and the determination of a six-month suspension of Luis
A. Salcedo’s “S” certification to his driver’s license shall be and is AFFIRMED.
I hereby FILE my initial decision with the COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION for
consideration.
This 	recommended 	decision 	may 	be 	adopted, 	modified 	or 	rejected 	by 	the
SUPERINTENDENT OF THE DIVISION OF STATE POLICE, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. 	If the Commissioner of the Department of
Environmental Protection 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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02297-26
5
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed 	to 	the 	parties, 	any 	party 	may 	file 	written 	exceptions 	with 	the
SUPERINTENDENT, DIVISION OF STATE POLICE, PO Box 7068, West Trenton,
New Jersey 08625-0068, marked "Attention: 	Exceptions." 	A copy of any exceptions
must be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
May 26, 2026_________
DATE 	ERNEST M. BONGIOVANNI, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	5/26/26
Mailed to Parties: 	5/26/26
id