Tuesday, September 25, 2012
SEPTEMBER 25, 2012 E-MAIL FOR CHRISTINE GORDON SHOWING COMPLAINT AGAINST DEBBIE ZUCCALA
LETTER FOR CHRISTINE GORDON ENLARGED
Dear Christine,
With your express and written admission that you are the manager of Ms. Debbie Zuccala, it follows that Ms. Zuccala is acting under your full supervision and control. It follows further that based on the principle of command responsibility, the willful neglect of duty to reply to my e-mails as Ms. Debbie Zuccala has demonstrated is an act done with your advise, decision, consent and approval. With your act of replying to my letter supposedly addressed to her, you are obviously showing discourtesy and protecting her from culpability. Unfortunately, with your actions you even have proven her incompetence and inefficiency. She could not even write a simple e-mail response and could not at least showed she could explain herself. If really she is not capable of writing e-mail response, she had at least informed me promptly, for courtesy sake, that she did not know the answers and formally endorsed somebody to write in her behalf and not left me waiting for a long time. Ms Debbie Zuccala had never endorsed a person to act on her behalf. Though you are her manager, courtesy dictates that you need to be introduced to me by Ms. Debbie Zuccala so that the same issues and questions which I posted for Ms. Debbie Zuccala could be continually addressed without any alibi that you or the person writing on her behalf are not aware of it.
You know, Christine, I believe you should not just interfere as it seemed you did not know the facts yet. If you do at least some reading you should have known that I do not have a phone to discuss this issue with you. It is clearly written on my application form that I wrote NONE for phone and equally clearly stated in my e-mail communications that I do not have phone, why keep on asking me for a phone when you can discuss all these issues with me through e-mail. Your excuse that you have exerted much effort to contact me by asking for my phone number or giving your phone number since the start of this controversy is a lame alibi ab initio. For the record, I would like to reiterate that in the application form that I have submitted to your office, it showed clearly that I have no phone for you to contact me with. This act of asking for a phone to contact me with when you know that I have none resolutely exemplifies your collective incompetence, inefficiency and willful neglect of duty causing much disappointment, discomfort and frustration on my part.
Now, again, may I request that please allow or advise or instruct Ms Debbie Zuccala to respond promptly and responsibly and give her a chance to prove herself worthy of the trust and confidence of the people she is duty bound to serve. Otherwise, with all due respect, in my opinion she should not be there.
Sincerely,
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.
Monday, September 24, 2012
SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 WES WILKINSON E-MAIL CLAIMING MANAGER OF DEBBIE ZUCCALA AND ATTACHED HIS LETTER
DOWNLOADED ATTACHED LETTER FROM WES WILKINSON
Saturday, September 22, 2012
SEPTEMBER 22, 2012 E-MAIL TO DEBBIE ZUCCALA TELLING HER I HAVE NO PHONE
You know I am out of employment and I do not have money to buy a phone plan for myself. Remember I have already spent $95 plus postage costs for certified mails I am sending you and I do not have so much to spend . Yet, I did not gain anything in return but disappointment.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Friday, September 14, 2012
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Monday, September 10, 2012
Thursday, September 6, 2012
SEPTEMBER 6, 2012 CERTIFIED MAIL FOR DEBBIE ZUCCALA IGNORED COMMUNICATIONS
September 6, 2012
CLICK HERE SEE SECOND CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT
Ms. Debbie Zuccala
State Water Resources Control Board
Office of Operator Certification
Division of Financial Assistance
RE : IGNORED E-MAIL COMMUNICATIONS DEMONSTRATING INCOMPETENCY, INEFFICIENCY AND INEXCUSABLE NEGLECT OF DUTY
Dear Ms. Zuccala,
I received a letter from you dated August 2, 2012 , informing me among others that, " If you (me) have any question, please contact (you) Debbie Zuccala at (916) 341-5639 or dzuccala@waterboards.ca.gov."
You gave me two options, first by phone and the second via e-mail. I chose the second option. So, on August 8, 2012, the day I received your dated August 2, 2012 letter, I sent you an e-mail telling you some clarifications and asking some questions. You did not give me a reply. So, on August 14, 2012. I sent you again the same e-mail. Again, you did not give me a reply. So, on August 15 ,2012, I sent you again the same e-mail for the third time. Again, you did not give me a reply. So, on August 16, 2012, I sent you again the same e-mail through registered mail and as per confirmation records on the Linda Vista Post Office showed the same was received by your office on August 20,2012. But as of today I have not received any response from you affirmative or otherwise.
Had you responded promptly, you could have asked and I could have explained to you why I was misled into filling up the "APPLICATION FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION" form and not the " EXAMINATION APPLICATION FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR" and be granted a reconsideration.
I was separated from my work, bio-diesel plant operator, at New Leaf Biofuel last July 24, 2012 and I devotedly searched for another source of livelihood, another job or career. Waste water treatment plant operations is one field I thought interesting, challenging and rewarding. I surfed the web and looked for waste water treatment plant operator jobs and I noticed that all job openings in that field called for a need to be certified before I could be considered for the position. This led me to your site and browsed therein for some information. After a few minutes of reading, I decided that I should take the examination, having thoughts in my mind that upon passing the examination, eventual certification would be the consequence thereof .Being unaware of the existence of a form specially intended for examination, after clicking web pages I came across a form titled "APPLICATION FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION". I filled it out, and again, honestly I am not aware of the existence of another form intended for examination. Actually, I thought that the the examination was an implied component of the certification application. This belief is bolstered by the existence of the form titled " WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION EXAMINATION SCHEDULE AND INFORMATION" which shows undoubtedly that certification and examination are combined together as one unit or entity. Moreover, may I invite your attention to the last page of the form titled " APPLICATION FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION" sub titled "PRIVACY ACT DISCLOSURE", to wit:
xxxxx PRIVACY ACT DISCLOSURE This information is requested by the STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, OFFICE OF OPERATOR CERTIFICATION. The authority for maintaining the requested information is the California Code of Regulations, Division 4, Chapter 14. All information requested on the application form must be provided by the applicant for examination. Failure to complete any portion of this form may result in delay or denial of eligibility for examination. The information provided is used to evaluate the applicant’s eligibility for examination for Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators. No transfers of this information are anticipated. For more information, or access to your records, contact the Office of Operator Certification, PO Box 944212, Sacramento, CA 94244-2120, Phone (916) 341-5819. xxxxxx
May I cite the following sentences taken therein :
xxxx" All information requested on the application form must be provided by the applicant for examination. Failure to complete any portion of this form may result in delay or denial of eligibility for examination. The information provided is used to evaluate the applicant’s eligibility for examination for Wastewater Treatment Plant Operators." xxxx
The first sentence requires that all information be provided by the applicant on the form for examination.This sentence clearly suggests that this form must be filled up for the purpose of examination. This implicitly manifests that this form for certification is one and the same form for examination. This gives credence that this form for certification is the same form for examination.
The second sentence warns that failure to complete any portion of this form may result in delay or denial of eligibility for examination This sentence obviously establishes the inseparability between the completeness of information in this form and the delay or denial of eligibility to take the examination. This instance conclusively conforms to my belief theexamination and certification forms are one in the operator certification form.
The third sentence consistently proves complete connection between the information contained in this form called certification and applicants' eligibility for examination for Waste Water Treatment Plant Operators. Again, examination and certification are taken together in a single form.
Moreover, had you responded to my e-mail timely I could have asked you and you could have explained why you erroneously considered a form titled "APPLICATION FOR WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION" which I have filed, be taken as an application for "WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT OPERATOR-IN-TRAINING CERTIFICATION". These are two titles of forms which are distinctly different from each other. As you can see "PLANT OPERATOR CERTIFICATION" is obviously far from "PLANT OPERATOR-IN-TRAINING CERTIFICATION". If you were efficient and competent enough you should sent me an e-mail reply and guided me to correct deficiencies which you think I need to resolve so that I might be able to take the October 6, 2012 GRADE 1 WWTP OPERATOR EXAMINATION. Have you not committed a willful neglect of duty, as demonstrated in this case, I should have made remedial actions to avoid loss of time, money and opportunity. By your negligence. I am required to pay another application fee and wait for another examination schedule.
In addition, had you been punctual to respond to my e-mail I could have asked and you could have explained to me why a five-year Bachelor of Science in Management Engineering course whose records have been with my application could not merit a 6 educational point requirement for GRADE 1 WWTP OPERATOR EXAMINATION. As you could see from the educational records, I have studied subjects dealing with engineering mathematics, physics and chemistry.The course have subject studies on civil, mechanical ,electrical and chemical engineering reinforced with a great deal of business management subjects. Just in case, the 5-year BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN MANAGEMENT ENGINEERING course credentials or records that I have sent to you together with my application did not merit a 6 point educational point, then, may I request that the same be returned to me with comments and annotations so that I may have a chance to seek a professional third party opinion about the matter.
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.
The TRUTH will set you FREE.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)