Copyright© 2005 by School Services of California, Inc.

                                      Volume 18                   For Publication Date: December 16, 2005             No. 25

School Transportation Drug Testing Issue Revisited

Recently, the Leg islative Counsel of California released its opinion of AB 1052 (Chapter 324, Statutes of 2005). That measure was intended to expand the types of school transportation vehicles that would subject school bus drivers to the federal controlled substance and alcohol use testing program.  

However AB 1052, which was signed into law on September 22, 2005, has left some districts confused about just who would be subject to drug and alcohol testing. AB 1052, which will become law on January 1, 2006, has been interpreted by some as applying to school district personnel whose primary job is not transportation, but who transport students as an ancillary part of his or her duties (i.e., a coach transporting student athletes). Assembly Member Leslie has reassured us that this was not the intent of the measure and that this issue was thoroughly vetted during the legislative process, in which both staff and legislators agreed that the intent was solely to expand the types of transportation vehicles covered by law, and not the classes of employees who must be tested.  

As a result of the differing interpretations, Assembly Member Leslie requested and received a Leg islative Counsel opinion which concluded that Vehicle Code Section 34520.3 applies only to bus drivers, but also acknowledged the ambiguity in the language of Vehicle Code Section 34520.3.   

However, according to the Leg islative Counsel opinion, it is important to emphasize that, in situations when more than one reasonable conclusion may be challenged in court, it is the court’s discretion to utilize other supporting documentation to ascertain the intended purpose of the law. In this case, the Leg islative Counsel Digest, which constitutes the official summary of the measure, as well as legislative committee analyses, explicitly state the intended purpose of the legislation, which is to only apply to school bus drivers who have been hired by a district or county office of education with the purpose of transporting students.  

The opinion stated:  

. . . Construing Section 34520.3 as applying to persons other than employees of a school district or county office of education who drive a school transportation vehicle would expand the reach of the statute beyond the scope intended by the Leg islature.

Accordingly, it is our opinion that Section 34520.3 of the Vehicle Code applies only to employees of a school district or county office of education who are employed to drive a school transportation vehicle.  

Commentary  

Therefore, at this time it appears that the new law is intended to apply solely to bus drivers and not to other employees, such as teachers and coaches. However, we believe in instances where districts and county offices of education are utilizing personnel other than bus drivers to transport students, it may be worth reexamining the practice since there are potential liability issues associated with utilizing personnel who may not otherwise be subject to federal drug and alcohol testing.

—Theresa Inslee and Jerry Twomey, CPA