Click here to subscribe today or Login.
Rinehimer Bus Lines has sued the Crestwood School District, alleging the School Board illegally terminated a contract with the company.
The issue springs from a discovery during a state audit last October that the district did not have required clearances and background checks on file at the central office. While private contractors are usually required to make sure drivers have all clearances, the district is required to keep paperwork on file.
Two days of school were canceled on Oct. 24 and 25 until the matter was resolved, and how those days were canceled is at the center of the lawsuit.
The school district canceled the contract citing paragraph 20. While the contract states the district can cancel the deal for “any material violation” of its terms, it also requires the district to give Rinehimer written notice of that violation and 30 days to correct it. The last line of paragraph 20, however says that if the “contractor demonstrates a complete failure to provide busing services,” the district can cancel the contract without written notice or time to correct the problem.
The lawsuit filed in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, contends that the contract termination appears to be due to the two days of cancelled school, but argues the problem arose because Crestwood violated the requirement to assure all drivers had needed clearances.
“It was not necessary to cancel school,” the suit posits, “there were ways in which Crestwood’s violation could have been addressed or resolved. … Crestwood, however, was not interested in pursuing any of them, including the option of putting teachers on the buses.”
In order to assure state requirements were met until clearances were obtained, Crestwood had put teachers on buses — an expense, the suit says, “Rinehimer offered to cover.”
Rinehimer argues “Crestwood’s primary goal was to use its own violations as a basis for canceling school and terminating the contract.
“At no time during the term of the contract has Rinehimer demonstrated a failure — let alone a complete failure — to providing busing service. Instead, Crestwood failed in its duty to maintain adequate records and oversight of the credentialing process,” the suit says. It also noted “in a matter of days” Rinehimer obtained credentials for all driver “none of whom were found to be ineligible to drive” for the district.
To bolster the argument Crestwood is at fault, the suit quotes several passages from news releases issued by the state Auditor General after the problem was found, including one quote in which the district was faulted for “the lack of oversight” and for its “outdated board policy.”
The suit does not mention one part of the audit released by the state Auditor General’s office noting what happened after the lack of paperwork at the district was discovered. The audit says the district “then sought to obtain the records” for bus drivers from both Rinehimer — referred to as the “primary contractor” — and another bus company contracted transport students. According to the audit, the other company “had complete records for all of its drivers,” but found “the primary contractor was seriously deficient to support whether its drivers were qualified and cleared to transport students.”
The audit notes, in bold print, “the primary contractor did not have copies of the required drivers’ licenses for more than two-thirds of its 46 drivers.”
The suit asks for unspecified “compensatory damages, consequential damages, prejudgment interest and such equitable or other relief as this court deems appropriate.” It also seeks at least $50,000 it contends the district owes Rinehimer under the contract for fuel costs that exceeded $1.67 per gallon.