RECORD OF MR. TOM HOWARD'S MANAGERIAL IRRESPONSIBILITY

YOU CANT CHEAT ON ME FOREVER

DUPLICATE FILE HERE

from:		antonio jr. Buensuceso <antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com>
to:		Tom.Howard@waterboards.ca.gov, thoward@waterboards.ca.gov
cc:		Liz Haven <Liz.Haven@waterboards.ca.gov>, Jonathan.Bishop@waterboards.ca.gov, "Maughan, James@Waterboards" <James.Maughan@waterboards.ca.gov>, "Gordon, Christine@Waterboards" <Christine.Gordon@waterboards.ca.gov>, "Wilkinson, Wes@Waterboards" <Wes.Wilkinson@waterboards.ca.gov>, "Cooper, Andrew@Waterboards" <andrew.cooper@waterboards.ca.gov>, anna.hernandez@waterboards.ca.gov, anna.perez@waterboards.ca.gov, "Zuccala, Debbie@Waterboards" <Debbie.Zuccala@waterboards.ca.gov>, dzuccala@waterboards.ca.gov, Antonio Buensuceso <shellresearchworks@gmail.com>
date:		Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:09 AM
subject:		RECORD OF MR. TOM HOWARD'S MANAGERIAL IRRESPONSIBILITY
mailed-by:		gmail.com

YOU CANT CHEAT ON ME FOREVER

HOWARD_27MAR15_17th FOLLOW UP_TWO LINKS FOR TITLE 23 WATERS

MARCH  27, 2015

Mr. Tom Howard 

Executive Director

State Water Resources  Control Board

Dear Mr. Tom Howard,

The OOC maintains two LINKS for TITLE 23 WATERS:

NEW LINK

1) http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/operator_certification/docs/ocr_clean.pdf

This NEW LINK was commissioned effective  April  1, 2013.  Examinees and/or applicants, most probably, would not be able to notice this change or if ever they did notice, they might not have the time to review again and study the new regulations and most likely to commit error in the submission of the application or error in the course of the examination. These errors work in favor of the OCC in terms of additional application fees and/or examination fees TO BE COLLECTED for filing another application for the same examination.

OLD LINK  

2) http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/operator_certification/docs/regs.pdf

Despite, the fact that there was a new LINK  for  TITLE WATERS on date April 1, 2013, supposedly the updated one, and therefore, the OLD LINK should have been deleted since April 1, 2013 to avoid confusion, but amazingly, the OOC kept this OLD LINK and maintained it existing even up to the present times. Though the contents might look similar, however in many cases,  the contents showed a lot of inconsistencies after a careful perusal which could most likely cause the prospective applicants and examinees to be misled and commit errors in the submission of the application and likewise errors in giving answers to the questions during the examination.

Hence, these errors result to more rounds of application and examination fees expected to be collected by the OOC from gullible applicants. This may be likened to an agency scam. THIS IS UNFAIR on part of the applicants and DEPLORABLE as a matter of your agency action.

For your appreciation,  I  most respectfully show you pertinent illustration about this subject:

NEW LINK

NEW LINK with the SIMILARLY LOOKING coverage as the old link

 OLD LINK

OLD LINK with the SIMILARLY LOOKING coverage as the new link

ONE EXAMPLE OF INCONSISTENCY on two links AMONG SO MANY particularly on fees.

from NEW LINK

FEES from new link inconsistent fees
shown in the old link

from OLD LINK 

FEES from new link inconsistent fees 

shown in the old link 

EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE OF THE TWO LINKS AT THE SAME TIME

DOWNLOADED FILES ON DATE JANUARY 21, 2015

from the OLD LINK                 from the NEW LINK

DOWNLOADED FILES ON DATE MARCH 2, 2015

from the OLD LINK                 from the NEW LINK

VIDEO ON THE EXISTENCE OF THE 

OLD AND NEW LINKS AS OF FIRST WEEK OF MARCH

TWO LINKS ACTIVE VIDEO
This is an unedited video file

 Now may I most humbly request that may you please give me the information on how many  applicants from date   April 1, 2013 up to this date who have  committed errors in filing of the application  as they have been misled by these two links and/or by the  old link and please show how much application fees the OCC  gained  from  these  re-applying applicants on account of those errors emanating from the existence of these two links at the same time.

May you please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail and I appreciate your favorable response about this subject.  Kindly send me a concise letter of denial on this subject should you decide to deny this request for information.

Thank you very much.

Yours faithfully,
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

MARCH 27, 2015_EMAIL FOR MAUGHAN_11TH TIME_HAVE YOU BEEN AUTHORIZED BY MR. HOWARD TO RESPOND ON HIS BEHALF

MARCH  27, 2015

Mr. James Maughan
Assistant Deputy Director
Division of Financial Assistance

Dear Mr. James Maughan,

May I most respectfully ask from you AGAIN,  have you been  authorized by    Mr. Tom Howard to respond on his behalf? If your answer is yes, then may you please seek an e-mail letter of authority from him giving you an express permission to respond on his behalf pertaining to this subject: HOWARD_12MAR15_6TH FOLLOW UP_TWO LINKS FOR TITLE WATER  and kindly provide me a copy of it.   The e-mail was addressed to Mr. Tom Howard and not to you, Mr. Maughan.  Without an endorsement from him that you have been authorized by him to respond on his behalf shows discourtesy on your part; likewise, may be tantamount to usurpation of authority, when you failed to secure and show a letter of authority from him.

Meanwhile, may I most humbly seek for your kind indulgence, that may you please quit from just butting in the negotiations without having been properly endorsed and acknowledged; and in case you are not capable of resolving issues under discussion  and you would want someone else to help you out, then please endorse him or her properly to show at least a bit of courtesy or respect for the person on the other side of the line.
I am showing you below my e-mail dated Sunday, February 23, 2014 addressed to you,   Mr. Maughan, depicting in great detail this pattern 

of discourtesy and disrespect, among so many,  bestowed by you and your employees against my person. This culture of discourtesy and/or disrespect or unethical conduct amounting to discrimination is true to everyone in your agency whom I happened to deal with from    Ms. Debbie Zuccala, Ms. Anna Hernandez, Mr. Wes Wilkinson, Ms. Christine Gordon,   Mr. Andrew Cooper and you, Mr. James Maughan and exemplified most vividly by your own agency manager, Mr. Tom Howard.  Your team should have spared at least,  Mr. Howard and at most,  the State Water Resources Control Board from this ridiculous and shameful predicament had you trained  and equipped  your employees to treat people on the other side of the table with respect and courtesy and free from discrimination early on and throughout  the application process.

Please do respond accordingly and responsibly and respond dignified with your own personal accountability.

Yours faithfully,
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

REFERENCE E-MAIL
Mr. Maughan reply to e-mail addressed to Mr. Howard

from:		Maughan, James@Waterboards <James.Maughan@waterboards.ca.gov>
to:		"antonio jr. Buensuceso" <antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com>
date:		Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 9:34 AM
subject:		RE: HOWARD_12MAR15_6th FOLLOW UP_TWO LINKS FOR TITLE 23 WATER
mailed-by:		waterboards.ca.gov

Maughan, James@Waterboards <James.Maughan@waterboards.ca.gov>

9:34 AM (7 hours ago)
to me

Mr. Buensuceso, we have received your emails which pointed out that we have two references to Title 23 Water.  We agree there are the two links and each link is defined (Effective August 1994, Amended April 2013).    We have received no those comments on this that it is confusing (other than your comments) and there has not been any collection of fee that are not appropriate.  Thank you for your email.  We consider this matter closed.

James Maughan

Assistant Deputy Director Division of Financial Assistance

State Water Resources Control Board

REFERENCE E-MAIL

from:		antonio jr. Buensuceso <antoniobuensuceso@gmail.com>
to:		"Maughan, James@Waterboards" <James.Maughan@waterboards.ca.gov>
cc:		"Gordon, Christine@Waterboards" <Christine.Gordon@waterboards.ca.gov>, "Wilkinson, Wes@Waterboards" <Wes.Wilkinson@waterboards.ca.gov>, "Zuccala, Debbie@Waterboards" <Debbie.Zuccala@waterboards.ca.gov>, dzuccala@waterboards.ca.gov, anna.hernandez@waterboards.ca.gov, "Cooper, Andrew@Waterboards" <andrew.cooper@waterboards.ca.gov>, Jonathan.Bishop@waterboards.ca.gov, Liz.Haven@waterboards.ca.gov, Antonio Buensuceso <shellresearchworks@gmail.com>
date:		Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 11:31 PM
subject:		PERSUASIVE APPEAL THIRD TIME
mailed-by:		gmail.com

Sunday, February 23, 2014

PERSUASIVE APPEAL THIRD IN A ROW

PERSUASIVE APPEAL THIRD TIME

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Dear Mr. James Maughan,

I am sending this letter today, February 23, 2014, to respectfully remind you that

I have not received any response from you since I sent you the PERSUASIVE

APPEAL dated Thursday, January 30, 2014.  Likewise,  I send the same letter on

Sunday,  February 16,  2014.   I did not receive any response from you on those 

two instances.  These facts led me to believe that you,  like your employees namely,

Ms Debbie Zuccala and Mr Andrew Cooper, fled after being proven to be at fault

to avoid culpability. Then,  someone else would just butt in without being endorsed

and meddle with the issues and complicate the matter even worse.

This is true and even validated again today,  after receiving a letter dated 

February 18, 2014 from Mr. Tom Howard. May I respectfully  inform you that                         
Mr. Tom Howard,  just butted in without being formally endorsed by you.  You 
know well,  that you requested  me to communicate with you with regards 
to my complaints, requests and demand,  and I,  with utmost humility, heeded your 
request.  It is discourtesy  on your side that you will just ignore to respond or 
flee or hide after I have patiently discussed issues with you.  May I most  respectfully 
tell you that If you feel that you are on the losing side of the argument and would 
want to terminate our discussion,  courtesy dictates that you endorse someone 
to communicate with me formally,  in this case Mr Tom Howard,  and not just 
ran away, fled and hide.  Then,  Mr  Tom Howard would just appear from nowhere.
Since,  Mr  Tom Howard,  though it is discourtesy on his side to just butt in without 
being endorsed by you,  but showed the initiative to talk to me by sending me a letter 

through certified mail dated  February 18, 2014,  courtesy and duty dictate me to 

respond. However,  responding through certified mails is too costly for one who is

out of employment for quite some time, so please, I would want to seek your 

indulgence by asking Mr Tom Howard to allow you to provide an  e-mail address 

for  me to write him to.

For your guidance I have the PERSUASIVE APPEAL written as part of this letter.
And my plea remain, please do not hide the original copy of my educational 
credentials, signed by the three of you (Maughan, Wilkinson and Hernandez)  and 
send them back to me and save your boss,  Mr. Tom Howard, from shame as you 
and the rest of your employees,  Mr Wes Wilkinson,  Ms Christine Gordon, 
Mr  Andrew Cooper,  Ms Debbie Zuccala and Ms  Anna Hernandez,   are 
experiencing right now.  Have the courage to keep shame just for yourselves.

Again, please mend your ways and save Mr. Tom Howard from shame.  

Thank you so much.


Yours faithfully,

Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.

MARCH 26, 2015_EMAIL FOR HOWARD_16th FOLLOW UP_TWO LINKS FOR TITLE 23 WATERS

MARCH  26, 2015

Mr. Tom Howard 

Executive Director

State Water Resources  Control Board

Dear Mr. Tom Howard,

The OOC maintains two LINKS for TITLE 23 WATERS:

NEW LINK

1) http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/operator_certification/docs/ocr_clean.pdf

This NEW LINK was commissioned effective  April  1, 2013.  Examinees and/or applicants, most probably, would not be able to notice this change or if ever they did notice, they might not have the time to review again and study the new regulations and most likely to commit error in the submission of the application or error in the course of the examination. These errors work in favor of the OCC in terms of additional application fees and/or examination fees TO BE COLLECTED for filing another application for the same examination.

OLD LINK  

2) http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/operator_certification/docs/regs.pdf

Despite, the fact that there was a new LINK  for  TITLE WATERS on date April 1, 2013, supposedly the updated one, and therefore, the OLD LINK should have been deleted since April 1, 2013 to avoid confusion, but amazingly, the OOC kept this OLD LINK and maintained it existing even up to the present times. Though the contents might look similar, however in many cases,  the contents showed a lot of inconsistencies after a careful perusal which could most likely cause the prospective applicants and examinees to be misled and commit errors in the submission of the application and likewise errors in giving answers to the questions during the examination.

Hence, these errors result to more rounds of application and examination fees expected to be collected by the OOC from gullible applicants. This may be likened to an agency scam. THIS IS UNFAIR on part of the applicants and DEPLORABLE as a matter of your agency action.

For your appreciation,  I  most respectfully show you pertinent illustration about this subject:

NEW LINK

NEW LINK with the SIMILARLY LOOKING coverage as the old link

 OLD LINK

OLD LINK with the SIMILARLY LOOKING coverage as the new link

ONE EXAMPLE OF INCONSISTENCY on two links AMONG SO MANY particularly on fees.

from NEW LINK

FEES from new link inconsistent fees
shown in the old link

from OLD LINK 

FEES from new link inconsistent fees 

shown in the old link 

EVIDENCE OF EXISTENCE OF THE TWO LINKS AT THE SAME TIME

DOWNLOADED FILES ON DATE JANUARY 21, 2015

from the OLD LINK                 from the NEW LINK

DOWNLOADED FILES ON DATE MARCH 2, 2015

from the OLD LINK                 from the NEW LINK

VIDEO ON THE EXISTENCE OF THE 

OLD AND NEW LINKS AS OF FIRST WEEK OF MARCH

TWO LINKS ACTIVE VIDEO
This is an unedited video file

 Now may I most humbly request that may you please give me the information on how many  applicants from date   April 1, 2013 up to this date who have  committed errors in filing of the application  as they have been misled by these two links and/or by the  old link and please show how much application fees the OCC  gained  from  these  re-applying applicants on account of those errors emanating from the existence of these two links at the same time.

May you please acknowledge receipt of this e-mail and I appreciate your favorable response about this subject.  Kindly send me a concise letter of denial on this subject should you decide to deny this request for information.

Thank you very much.

Yours faithfully,
Antonio L. Buensuceso Jr.