Department Of Motor Vehicles Issues Ruling On Student
Transportation:
The transportation of students between school and home is a tightly regulated
activity in Connecticut. The regulations are well defined, the rules are clear. The
rules governing the transportation of students to and from school activities are
less defined and have been subject to lots of interpretation. Attorneys serving
Connecticut’s public, Catholic and independent schools generally advise clients
to employ (exclusively) professional bus drivers, or license-endorsed teachers or
coaches, using registered busses or school-owned and maintained activity vans
for this purpose. That practice certainly lowers liability risk for the school.
However, many schools find the practice to be impractical at times, and
unaffordable.
Last summer an attorney representing a public school district requested an
official DMV ruling on the type of operator’s license endorsement required by
various individuals transporting school students. Fearful that an official ruling on
the matter might severely restrict our options, CAIS (Lyons) lobbied the DMV
Commissioner directly on this issue, and made the Department aware of the
significant negative impact a ruling restricting the use of parent volunteers and
teachers using personal vehicles would have on student activities at all schools –
independent, public and Catholic. CABE, the Connecticut Association of Boards
of Education appealed to the Commissioner as well.
Bob Ward, the DMV Commissioner assured me privately that the ruling would be
reasonable. I was grateful for this assurance, since I am aware of pressure on
the Commissioner for a restrictive ruling (I believe some of that pressure
originated in the DMV’s own legal staff – and clearly, some of it emanates from
school bus company lobbyists – who view all volunteer driving as a loss of
potential income for bus company owners).
The resulting ruling, the full text of which appears below, is a welcome relief,
though it does leave a few questions unanswered. The most critical question that
is left unanswered occurs in the last two paragraphs of the document. The
question pertains to the applicable definition of the term “activity vehicle”, when
that vehicle is privately owned by a teacher, coach or other paid school
employee.
The Commissioner is well aware that teachers and coaches currently use their
own vehicles to transport students. This occurs with the support and under the
supervision of individual schools. In fact, the Commissioner’s wife is a public high
school teacher and she uses their family car to transport her students to school
events. The Commissioner has chosen not to rule on this practice. By choosing
not to rule on whether a coach or teacher driving students to activities in his/her
own vehicle defines that vehicle as a “de facto” student activity vehicle subject to
all of the requirements pertaining to the use of those vehicles, the Commissioner
has preserved the status quo on the practice. Amen.
There is always the possibility of future legislation on this issue – but I do not see
it on the horizon. If my prediction changes, CAIS and CABE together will use our
relationships and our reputations with legislators in our efforts to maintain a
practice that has had a long, generally successful history in Connecticut. A future
tragedy involving a privately owned vehicle driven by a teacher or parent
volunteer and resulting in widespread publicity and/or a court decision could,
however, result in greater legislative or judicial scrutiny – and a different outlook.
The exact language of the ruling appears below, in italics, followed by my
personal advice on how our schools can interpret this.
The ruling:
A motor vehicle operator’s license endorsement is not required to be held by a
parent or other volunteer who transports one or more students in connection with
a school sponsored event or activity, because, under these circumstances, the
vehicle does not meet the statutory definition of an “activity vehicle.”
2. The incidental, unplanned and/or emergency operation of a motor vehicle by a
paid teacher, coach or other school employee or agent to transport a student
does not require the operator to hold an operator’s license endorsement
because, under these circumstances, the vehicle does not meet the statutory
definition of an “activity vehicle.”
3. Notwithstanding the above-stated exclusions, which follow from the current,
statutory definitions of “activity vehicle”, “student transportation vehicle” and
“carrier”, an operator’s license bearing one or more endorsements must be held
by any person who does not fall under the definition of “carrier” but who
transports students in a service bus.
4. The Commissioner declines to issue a declaratory ruling, at this time,
concerning the additional question raised by the Petition, of whether a motor
vehicle being used by a paid teacher, coach or other employee of a local or
regional school district, or educational institution that provides elementary or
secondary education, for the purpose of transporting students in connection with
a school-sponsored event or activity, is an
activity vehicle, within the meaning of the statutory definition.
5. The decision not to rule on this question is made due to the absence of
statutory provisions, regulations or other legal authorities that provide sufficient
guidance to make a determination of the question, as well as the absence, at this
time, of an actual case or controversy involving the application, or the threatened
application of any provision of the general statutes or regulation administered by
the Department of Motor Vehicles. In this circumstance, the Commissioner
deems that it is prudent to await a possible, future determination of the issue by
the legislature or the courts, as the case may be.
Interpretation and Advice:
The ruling does not officially endorse or sanction the use of parents or other
unpaid volunteers to transport students to activities. However, the ruling
demonstrates, for the first time, a written recognition by the DMV that this is a
practice employed by schools in Connecticut. By stating that these drivers do not
need a license endorsement, a reasonable person could conclude that the DMV
is not troubled by this practice.
The DMV’s implied “acceptance” of the role of parent and volunteer drivers does
not, however diminish the likelihood that a school will be sued in the event of an
accident.
Schools that allow teachers, parents and unpaid volunteers to drive students
should make certain that the school’s insurance will provide coverage in the
event of a claim against the school. Most school insurers will offer “back-up”
coverage to the protection held by the volunteer, vehicle owner. Schools should
check with their carriers for any requirements mandated by their insurance
company. You can anticipate that the insurer may require certain minimum levels
of coverage in the insurance policy held by the vehicle owner.
Last year I sent out guidelines to schools, listing school practices that heighten
safety and lower liability risk when using parents and volunteers. I will further
refine those guidelines and send an expanded list to school Business Managers
shortly. I encourage you to consider adopting some/all of them.
Paragraph 2 of the ruling states that “ The incidental, unplanned and/or
emergency operation of a motor vehicle by a paid teacher, coach or other school
employee or agent to transport a student does not require the operator to hold an
operator’s license endorsement because, under these circumstances, the vehicle
does not meet the statutory definition of an activity vehicle”. Here are a few
examples to help you understand the intent of this paragraph:
Example 1 A student has a serious nosebleed after a collision with another
student during an athletic practice. A staff member at the school – who does not
hold an endorsed license - offers to take the student to a nearby hospital. This
would allow the coach, who does hold an endorsed license to remain with the
team. This is an acceptable solution. Whether the volunteer staff member drives
his/her own vehicle or a school-owned student activity vehicle is a moot point,
since, under this particular circumstance, the vehicle is “not a school activity
vehicle”. The volunteer staff member may not, however, drive any vehicle that
has been registered as a “bus” – that would include the 15 passenger minibusses that are popular at our schools. There is no circumstance in which a
vehicle bearing the word “bus” on the registration may be driven by a person who
does not hold the proper license endorsement.
Example 2 A married couple live in a dorm at a boarding school. The wife is a
faculty member, the husband is not employed by the school. Two students who
live in the dorm ask the husband if he could give them a ride to the train station
since they were planning to go into the city to participate in a benefit-related
Walk-a-Thon. The students had previously decided not to take the school’s
shuttle service to the station, and now the shuttle is no longer running. The
students had planned to use a private taxi, but when they phoned, the taxi
company responded that no cabs were available. In this circumstance, (an
unplanned dilemma) the husband, who does not have a license endorsement
may drive the students. The husband is not an employee, but he can be
considered an “agent” of the school.
Example 3 A school tennis team is scheduled for a 4:00 match on a competitor’s
courts. The school has contracted with a private bus company for transportation
to the event. The scheduled private bus has a breakdown en route to the school
and the company has no other busses available. In this circumstance a
combination of parent volunteers and faculty members (none of whom hold
endorsed licenses) may participate in driving the team to the event.
Example 4 The school Yearbook advisor receives a phone call from the
professional photographer responsible for all the formal photos that will appear in
book. The photographer states that, in order for him to meet the publishing
company’s deadline, someone from the Yearbook staff needs to come to the
studio that afternoon and advise him re: photo selections. The Yearbook Advisor
(a teacher who does not hold the endorsement) drives the student editor to the
photographer’s studio. Is this incidental? The definition of “incidental” in my
dictionary is: “occurring by chance, without intention”. I think a reasonable person
could conclude that this example meets the definition of “incidental”.
Example 5 The Yearbook Advisor from Example 4 schedules a monthly
meeting at the printing studio that has been contracted to produce the yearbook.
The Advisor generally brings one of the student editors to these meetings. Is this
incidental? My conversations with DMV officials lead me to believe that the intent
of the language is this: any event that is regular, albeit infrequent, and can be
reasonably anticipated, is not “incidental”. Although “Incidental” circumstances do
not have to meet the highest standard (i.e. emergency) and they can include
unplanned dilemmas, the intent of the term does not stretch to include all low
frequency situations. Therefore, in this circumstance, the Yearbook advisor
should hold the license.
Example 5 will be a disappointment to some of our schools. However, on
balance, attaining a license endorsement in Connecticut is a mere inconvenience
compared to the requirements in most other states. The process requires neither
a written test nor a road test – and the license is good for eight years.
I believe that the DMV ruling on this requirement is reasonable, manageable and
should not overshadow the larger victories in the Commissioner’s ruling.
Be assured that the commentary in this memo, and the examples I have
hypothesized have been reviewed and endorsed by Coleman Casey, the CAIS
attorney from Shipman and Goodwin. The examples in the memo have also been
reviewed by the DMV attorney who actually wrote the ruling, and who concurs
with my analysis of the intent of the language.
The next CAIS Business Managers meeting, open to all CAIS Business
Managers or their designees, is scheduled for February 20th, 9:30 in the RutzRees Dining Hall at Choate. This will be a topic on the agenda.
Please do not hesitate to call me if you think I can be helpful to your
understanding of this ruling.
All the best
Doug