Van drivers urge Akron Public Schools to restore Templeton routes as parents report missed and late rides

Dozens of current and former Akron van drivers and a Templeton Transportation representative told the Akron Public Schools board on Aug. 25 that routes originally assigned to Templeton were taken back by the district and reassigned to Buckeye Logistics, leaving at least 50 Templeton drivers without work and some students without timely service.

The testimony came during the public comment portion of the board meeting and included multiple drivers who said Templeton had been awarded routes, trained drivers and prepared vehicles, only to have assignments revoked days or weeks later. Alan Beers, who read a prepared statement on behalf of owner Dara Templeton, said Templeton transported more than 300 students last year with 42 drivers and that the company’s goal was to preserve local drivers’ jobs. "We respectfully ask that you allow us to continue serving Akron students because doing so best supports their stability and success," Beers said.

Why this matters: Several commenters said the reassignment has disrupted service for students with individualized education programs (IEPs) and other students who rely on consistent drivers. Multiple speakers said children were arriving at school up to 45 minutes late and that some students had been left without rides. Templeton-affiliated speakers described months of preparation, paying for insurance and training, and expressed financial hardship after losing expected routes.

Drivers and families described specific impacts. Crystal Corey, an independent-contractor van driver since 2011, told the board, "These students have special needs. If they're missing breakfast, they're missing the pledge of allegiance. . . . We have 50 Templeton drivers fully ready to work." Stacy Bergdorf, a 25-year APS van driver, told the board the district’s previous system allowed Templeton to claim unassigned students within 24 hours; she said that system worked and that this year "one company has been allowed to control all the work and children are being left behind." Joshua Williams, also speaking for Templeton, asked the board for clearer guarantees: "Can you guarantee when we will have students? Can you guarantee when we will have the ability to represent you guys and partner and thrive in harmony with Buckeye?"

Speakers tied the current confusion back to remarks made at the May 27 board meeting, saying board members had indicated an intent to employ the existing van drivers. Commenter Darren Williams quoted that earlier phrasing, saying, "the intent is to employ the van drivers that we have now," and argued the district was not following that stated intent.

Board members and the superintendent acknowledged the problem and said administration and the board would follow up. Board Member Stancy Sykes, chair of the finance committee, told commenters, "I hear you. I respect you. I appreciate you. I am sorry that we are in this situation, but I am willing to and will work to make sure that we correct whatever this issue is." Several other board members—Member Hall, Vice President Alexander and Member Harrison—also said they had heard the public comments and wanted clarification of how contracts and assignments were being executed.

What was asked and what the board said it would do: Commenters asked for (1) clarity about how routes and new student assignments are divided between the two vendors (Templeton and Buckeye); (2) guarantees or timelines for when Templeton drivers would be assigned students; and (3) oversight so students with IEPs are not left out of required transportation. Board members said they would review contract language and committee processes to ensure the district’s execution matches the board’s intent, and the superintendent said appropriate staff would follow up with the commenters.

Context and past meetings: Multiple speakers referred to the May 27 board meeting where board members, the commenters said, stated an intention that current local van drivers would be retained. Commenters also described Templeton’s July contract and subsequent reallocations in late July and August that left drivers without assignments.

Next steps and unanswered questions: The board did not take a formal vote tied to the transportation contracts during the Aug. 25 meeting. Members said follow-up would come through the superintendent and committee work (finance/HR/operations) to clarify contract execution, vendor oversight, and whether the district’s routing process complied with board direction and legal requirements for students with IEPs. Speakers asked for specific responses to questions they said they had sent to the superintendent; the transcript records that those questions had not yet been answered.

Ending: The public comment period ended with the board promising further review. The agenda moved on to committee reports and routine approvals; the board scheduled committee meetings and said they would circulate dates for follow-up, including a possible transportation information committee meeting.